Case Name: Linda Ann TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BEINOR, Doctor; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina; James Christopher, Major for Sled; Samuel P. Riley, Sheriff of Greenwood County; Earl Richard Bazzle, Warden of Leath Correctional Institution; Bernice Wiggleton, Major, at Leath Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-20
Citations: 81 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 03-7120
Parties: Linda Ann TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BEINOR, Doctor; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina; James Christopher, Major for Sled; Samuel P. Riley, Sheriff of Greenwood County; Earl Richard Bazzle, Warden of Leath Correctional Institution; Bernice Wiggleton, Major, at Leath Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
Linda Ann TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BEINOR, Doctor; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina; James Christopher, Major for Sled; Samuel P. Riley, Sheriff of Greenwood County; Earl Richard Bazzle, Warden of Leath Correctional Institution; Bernice Wiggleton, Major, at Leath Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-7120.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2003.
Decided Nov. 20, 2003.
Linda Ann Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina; James Miller Davis, Jr., Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Linda Ann Tyler appeals the district court's order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to state a claim. Tyler's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and clearly advised Tyler that failure to file specific and timely objections to his recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Tyler filed only general, eonelusory objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), a district court is required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection has been made. The court need not conduct de novo review, however, "when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). 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 that failure to so object will waive appellate review. Orpiano, 687 F.3d at 47.
We find that Tyler has waived appellate review by failing to direct the district court to specific errors in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir.1984) (failure to file objections waives appellate review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order and deny Tyler's motion to vacate the district court's order. 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