Case Name: Randy L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ervin BREWSTER, Detective, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-23
Citations: 308 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 08-7880
Parties: Randy L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ervin BREWSTER, Detective, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
Randy L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ervin BREWSTER, Detective, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-7880.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2009.
Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Miller Snyder, Clarkson, Walsh, Rhe-ney & Terrell, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Valentine appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Valentine 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). Valentine 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.