Case Name: Michael Brunell FLANIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Rex Blocker, Physician FCI Edgefield; Richard Kelso, Lieutenant FCI Edgefield; John J. Lamanna, Warden FCI Edgefield; Harley G. Lappin, Director BOP; Hector Lopez, Physician FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-28
Citations: 363 F. App'x 985
Docket Number: No. 09-7950
Parties: Michael Brunell FLANIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Rex Blocker, Physician FCI Edgefield; Richard Kelso, Lieutenant FCI Edgefield; John J. Lamanna, Warden FCI Edgefield; Harley G. Lappin, Director BOP; Hector Lopez, Physician FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 985–987

Head Matter:
Michael Brunell FLANIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Rex Blocker, Physician FCI Edgefield; Richard Kelso, Lieutenant FCI Edgefield; John J. Lamanna, Warden FCI Edgefield; Harley G. Lappin, Director BOP; Hector Lopez, Physician FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-7950.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2010.
Michael Brunell Flanigan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Brunell Flanigan appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 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 the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and advised Flanigan that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Flanigan 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). Flanigan 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.