Case Name: Dora Toole ROUNDTREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary WEBB; Pamela Glover; Jennifer Holston, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-27
Citations: 393 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 10-1392
Parties: Dora Toole ROUNDTREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary WEBB; Pamela Glover; Jennifer Holston, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 79–79

Head Matter:
Dora Toole ROUNDTREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary WEBB; Pamela Glover; Jennifer Holston, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1392.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2010.
Dora Toole Roundtree, Appellant Pro Se.
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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dora Toole Roundtree appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint, and the district court's subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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 Roundtree that failure to file timely 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). Roundtree has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the orders 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.