Case Name: Bobby SAUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-03
Citations: 8 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 00-2303
Parties: Bobby SAUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 8
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
Bobby SAUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-2303.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2001.
Decided May 3, 2001.
William S. Thompson, Cook & Cook, Madison, WV, for appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Regional Chief, Robert W. Flynn, Assistant Regional, Office of the General, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, PA; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephen M. Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellee.
Before LUTTIG and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bobby Saul appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's final decision regarding the onset date of Saul's disability for determining entitlement to Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1994). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed and advised Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140,106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Appellant 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.