Case Name: George GRANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David CRENSHAW; Joey Preston; Chrissy T. Adams, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-22
Citations: 358 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 09-7748
Parties: George GRANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David CRENSHAW; Joey Preston; Chrissy T. Adams, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 396–396

Head Matter:
George GRANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David CRENSHAW; Joey Preston; Chrissy T. Adams, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-7748.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2009.
George Grant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, Doyle, O’Rourke, Tate & McDade, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Grant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Grant that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Grant failed to make specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Grant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.