Case Name: KeviN HARBIN, a/k/a Kevin Habin, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Augustus McBeth; Robert Hutto; John Henry Hart; Kyrie Johnson; Michael Young; Ras'Khafre; Jarvis Gibbs; Markey Linen; Darvin Allen; Carlos Rolind; Christopher Gale; Henry J. Dukes; Kenneth White; Leshaun Byrd; Rafi-Al Jami; Raschaun Colbert; William Sims, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; William R. Byars, Jr., Director; John H. Carmichael, Jr., Deputy Director; Gary A. Boyd, Director of Inmate Service; Lloyd J. Roberts, Chief Chaplain of Inmate Service; Omar Shaheed, Senior Muslim Chaplain of Islam Affairs; Tamir Abdul Mutakabluir, Islam Affairs; Reginald Cruz, Chaplain of Inmate Service; Glenn Sherman, Chaplain of Inmate Service; David Tatarsky, General Counsel; Sandra Bowie, Policy Development; J. Michael Brown, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-30
Citations: 605 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 15-6555
Parties: KeviN HARBIN, a/k/a Kevin Habin, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Augustus McBeth; Robert Hutto; John Henry Hart; Kyrie Johnson; Michael Young; Ras’Khafre; Jarvis Gibbs; Markey Linen; Darvin Allen; Carlos Rolind; Christopher Gale; Henry J. Dukes; Kenneth White; Leshaun Byrd; Rafi-Al Jami; Raschaun Colbert; William Sims, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; William R. Byars, Jr., Director; John H. Carmichael, Jr., Deputy Director; Gary A. Boyd, Director of Inmate Service; Lloyd J. Roberts, Chief Chaplain of Inmate Service; Omar Shaheed, Senior Muslim Chaplain of Islam Affairs; Tamir Abdul Mutakabluir, Islam Affairs; Reginald Cruz, Chaplain of Inmate Service; Glenn Sherman, Chaplain of Inmate Service; David Tatarsky, General Counsel; Sandra Bowie, Policy Development; J. Michael Brown, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
KeviN HARBIN, a/k/a Kevin Habin, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Augustus McBeth; Robert Hutto; John Henry Hart; Kyrie Johnson; Michael Young; Ras’Khafre; Jarvis Gibbs; Markey Linen; Darvin Allen; Carlos Rolind; Christopher Gale; Henry J. Dukes; Kenneth White; Leshaun Byrd; Rafi-Al Jami; Raschaun Colbert; William Sims, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; William R. Byars, Jr., Director; John H. Carmichael, Jr., Deputy Director; Gary A. Boyd, Director of Inmate Service; Lloyd J. Roberts, Chief Chaplain of Inmate Service; Omar Shaheed, Senior Muslim Chaplain of Islam Affairs; Tamir Abdul Mutakabluir, Islam Affairs; Reginald Cruz, Chaplain of Inmate Service; Glenn Sherman, Chaplain of Inmate Service; David Tatarsky, General Counsel; Sandra Bowie, Policy Development; J. Michael Brown, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6555.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2015.
Decided: June 30, 2015.
Kevin L. Harbin, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keven Harbin appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Harbin 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). Harbin 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.