Case Name: Lindsey PHILLIPS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; York County, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-06
Citations: 198 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 06-6288
Parties: Lindsey PHILLIPS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; York County, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 198
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Lindsey PHILLIPS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; York County, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6288.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 6, 2006.
Lindsey Phillips, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lindsey Phillips, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Phillips that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Phillips failed to object 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). Phillips has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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.