Case Name: Esau JENKINS, a/k/a Esau Jenkins, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. ENEJE; P.A. Decker; M. Rivera, Warden, FCI Estill, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-22
Citations: 358 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 09-7765
Parties: Esau JENKINS, a/k/a Esau Jenkins, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. ENEJE; P.A. Decker; M. Rivera, Warden, FCI Estill, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 395–395

Head Matter:
Esau JENKINS, a/k/a Esau Jenkins, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. ENEJE; P.A. Decker; M. Rivera, Warden, FCI Estill, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-7765.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2009.
Esau Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Esau Jenkins appeals the district court's order denying relief on his civil action. 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 Jenkins 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, Jenkins failed to object 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Jenkins 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.