Case Name: Alex ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-03
Citations: 414 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 11-1038
Parties: Alex ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
Alex ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-1038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2011.
Decided: March 3, 2011.
Alex Abou-Hussein, Appellant Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alex Abou-Hussein appeals the district court's order denying relief on his Freedom of Information Act complaint. 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 relief be denied and advised Abou-Hussein that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate 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). Abou-Hussein has waived appellate review by failing to 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.