Case Name: Odell Gene GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine C. EAGLES; L. Patrick Auld, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-23
Citations: 639 F. App'x 966
Docket Number: No. 16-6129
Parties: Odell Gene GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine C. EAGLES; L. Patrick Auld, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 966–966

Head Matter:
Odell Gene GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine C. EAGLES; L. Patrick Auld, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-6129.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2016.
Decided: May 23, 2016.
Odel} Gene Golden, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Odell Gene Golden appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Golden 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). Golden 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.