Case Name: Sabrina D. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIA MOTORS OF AMERICA; KIA Motors America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 11-2410
Parties: Sabrina D. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIA MOTORS OF AMERICA; KIA Motors America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
Sabrina D. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIA MOTORS OF AMERICA; KIA Motors America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-2410.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2012.
Sabrina D. Davis, Appellant pro se.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sabrina D. Davis appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint and advised Davis 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). Davis 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.