Case Name: Joan WHITLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA; Don Cameron, Executive Director; Gary W. Plum, individually and in his official capacity; Calix Jones, Section 8 Specialist, individually and in her official capacity; Stephen Wright, Lieutenant, Public Housing Unit Supervisor, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-13
Citations: 50 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 02-2026
Parties: Joan WHITLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA; Don Cameron, Executive Director; Gary W. Plum, individually and in his official capacity; Calix Jones, Section 8 Specialist, individually and in her official capacity; Stephen Wright, Lieutenant, Public Housing Unit Supervisor, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 146–146

Head Matter:
Joan WHITLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA; Don Cameron, Executive Director; Gary W. Plum, individually and in his official capacity; Calix Jones, Section 8 Specialist, individually and in her official capacity; Stephen Wright, Lieutenant, Public Housing Unit Supervisor, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-2026.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
John Whitley, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Patrick Corrigan, III, Grimball & Cabaniss, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joan Whitley appeals the district court's order dismissing her 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 Whitley 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, Whitley 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, provided 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Whitley 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.