Case Name: Michael Leonard POORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, The VA; Patricia O. Pittman, Director of Dorn, VA Facility, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-21
Citations: 435 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 11-6430
Parties: Michael Leonard POORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, The VA; Patricia O. Pittman, Director of Dorn, VA Facility, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Michael Leonard POORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, The VA; Patricia O. Pittman, Director of Dorn, VA Facility, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6430.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 16, 2011.
Decided: June 21, 2011.
Michael Leonard Poore, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Leonard Poore appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint against Defendants. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and advised Poore that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appel late 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). Poore 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.