Case Name: Linda Ann PUTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-30
Citations: 93 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 03-2277
Parties: Linda Ann PUTMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WAL-MART, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 93
Pages: 515–516

Head Matter:
Linda Ann PUTMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WAL-MART, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-2277.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2004.
Decided: March 30, 2004.
Linda Ann Putman, Appellant pro se.
Jim Odell Stuckey, II, Deborah Nye Whittle, Willie F. Bradley, Jr., Nelson Muhins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Linda Ann Putman 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 Putman that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Putman 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 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Putman 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