Case Name: Joana DESHIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SDH EDUCATION EAST, LLC, d/b/a/ Sodexo, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 543 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 13-1945
Parties: Joana DESHIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SDH EDUCATION EAST, LLC, d/b/a/ Sodexo, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
Joana DESHIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SDH EDUCATION EAST, LLC, d/b/a/ Sodexo, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-1945.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
Joana Deshield, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Joyce Lehman, Gregory Phillip McGuire, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joana Deshield appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Defendant in her employment discrimination action. Deshield's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Deshield that failure to file timely objections to the 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 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). Deshield has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Deshield's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.