Case Name: Hannah HICKMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Beth HARLEE; Charles J. Cunning, Doctor; Penni Griffin; Walt Griffin; Limestone College, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-12
Citations: 223 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 06-2037
Parties: Hannah HICKMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Beth HARLEE; Charles J. Cunning, Doctor; Penni Griffin; Walt Griffin; Limestone College, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
Hannah HICKMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Beth HARLEE; Charles J. Cunning, Doctor; Penni Griffin; Walt Griffin; Limestone College, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-2037.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2007.
Decided: April 12, 2007.
Hannah Hickmon, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hannah Hickmon appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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 Hickmon 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, Hickmon 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). Hickmon has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.