Case Name: Reginald D. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; City Of Sumter, South Carolina; Patty J. Patterson, Chief of Sumter Police; Sumter Police Department; Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-06
Citations: 360 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 08-8397
Parties: Reginald D. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; City Of Sumter, South Carolina; Patty J. Patterson, Chief of Sumter Police; Sumter Police Department; Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
Reginald D. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; City Of Sumter, South Carolina; Patty J. Patterson, Chief of Sumter Police; Sumter Police Department; Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-8397.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 6, 2010.
Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred Johnston Cox, Ellis, Lawhorne & Sims, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James M. Davis, Jr., Davidson & Linde-mann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald D. Evans 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Evans 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, Evans 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). Evans 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.