Case Name: Jose SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-25
Citations: 399 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 10-1673
Parties: Jose SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
Jose SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-1673.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2010.
Jose Slaughter, Appellant Pro Se. Lara Dee Pyne Crane, Bureau of Prisons, Beaver, West Virginia, Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Slaughter appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action, filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 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 Slaughter that failure to file timely, specific 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). Slaughter 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.