Case Name: Nathaniel C. RILEY, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark BOURDON; Charles M. Condon; Henry McMaster; David Swacky, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 339 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 09-1144
Parties: Nathaniel C. RILEY, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark BOURDON; Charles M. Condon; Henry McMaster; David Swacky, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Nathaniel C. RILEY, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark BOURDON; Charles M. Condon; Henry McMaster; David Swacky, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1144.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2009.
Decided: July 27, 2009.
Nathaniel C. Riley, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel C. Riley, II, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Riley that failure to file specific, timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Riley failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Riley has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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.