Case Name: Charlton Javier DOWLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gregory VOIGT; J. Al Cannon, Jr., Esq.; Carolina Center for Occupational Health, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-23
Citations: 443 F. App'x 881
Docket Number: No. 11-6748
Parties: Charlton Javier DOWLING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gregory VOIGT; J. Al Cannon, Jr., Esq.; Carolina Center for Occupational Health, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 881–882

Head Matter:
Charlton Javier DOWLING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gregory VOIGT; J. Al Cannon, Jr., Esq.; Carolina Center for Occupational Health, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-6748.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2011.
Charlton Javier Dowling, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlton Javier Dowling appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case 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 Dowling that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation that specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made 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). Dowling 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.