Case Name: Alteric HUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIRKLAND R & E, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-17
Citations: 68 F. App'x 519
Docket Number: No. 03-7000
Parties: Alteric HUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIRKLAND R & E, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
Alteric HUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIRKLAND R & E, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-7000.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 10, 2003.
Decided July 17, 2003.
Alteric Hunt, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Alterie Hunt 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 Hunt 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, Hunt 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Hunt has waived appellate review by failing to file 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.