Case Name: Haley J. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Director Jon Ozmint; Dr. John Solomon, Director Of Health Services; Dr. Michael Beinor, Director Med; Willie Eagleton, Warden ECI; RN Amy Smith, HCA; LPN Charlene Gaskins; LPN Shelly Stokes; LPN Carrie Rhyan, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 415 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 10-7041
Parties: Haley J. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Director Jon Ozmint; Dr. John Solomon, Director Of Health Services; Dr. Michael Bei-nor, Director Med; Willie Eagleton, Warden ECI; RN Amy Smith, HCA; LPN Charlene Gaskins; LPN Shelly Stokes; LPN Carrie Rhyan, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
Haley J. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Director Jon Ozmint; Dr. John Solomon, Director Of Health Services; Dr. Michael Bei-nor, Director Med; Willie Eagleton, Warden ECI; RN Amy Smith, HCA; LPN Charlene Gaskins; LPN Shelly Stokes; LPN Carrie Rhyan, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-7041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
Decided: March 8, 2011.
Haley J. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Haley J. Thomas 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Thomas 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 noneomplianee. 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). Thomas 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.