Case Name: Nathanael L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff John H. BARTELL, Jr.; Investigator Kennedy; Officer W. Jackson, # 310, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-13
Citations: 645 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 16-6153
Parties: Nathanael L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff John H. BARTELL, Jr.; Investigator Kennedy; Officer W. Jackson, # 310, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Nathanael L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff John H. BARTELL, Jr.; Investigator Kennedy; Officer W. Jackson, # 310, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-6153.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 8, 2016.
Decided: April 13, 2016.
Nathanael L. Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, Willcox Buyck & Williams, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathanael L. Reynolds 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 Reynolds 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). Reynolds 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.