Case Name: Yvette COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; Hampton, County of, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-19
Citations: 354 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 09-1506
Parties: Yvette COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; Hampton, County of, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 354
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Yvette COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; Hampton, County of, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1506.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 5, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 19, 2009.
Yvette Cole, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yvette Cole appeals the district court's order denying relief on her 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 Cole 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, Cole 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). Cole 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.