Case Name: Judy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; James B. Peake, Secretary of Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-14
Citations: 465 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 11-1953
Parties: Judy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; James B. Peake, Secretary of Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 275–275

Head Matter:
Judy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; James B. Peake, Secretary of Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-1953.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.
Judy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Judy Smith appeals the district court's order accepting the report of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant in this employment discrimination action. The district court referred this ease 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 Smith 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). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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.