Case Name: Janice LAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gen PAK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-22
Citations: 455 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 11-1794
Parties: Janice LAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gen PAK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 298–298

Head Matter:
Janice LAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gen PAK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-1794.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 22, 2011.
Janice Land, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Kerr Adams, Jerry Howard Walters, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Janice Land appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Land that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). Land 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.