Case Name: Naomi FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-01
Citations: 33 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 02-1099
Parties: Naomi FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
Naomi FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1099.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2002.
Decided May 1, 2002.
Naomi Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. John Berkley Grimball, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Naomi Frazier appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and affirming the denial of Frazier's claim for disability insurance benefits. Frazier's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's denial of benefits and advised Frazier 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, Frazier 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Frazier 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.