Case Name: Helene Maria RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Seth BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-10
Citations: 615 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 14-2235
Parties: Helene Maria RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Seth BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Helene Maria RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Seth BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2235.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 10, 2015.
Helene Maria Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen M. Wolfinger, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; George .John Conits, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Helene Maria Riley appeals the district court's order denying relief on her civil action against Seth Bartlett. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.-§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Riley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Riley filed no objections, and the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report.
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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Riley has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, although we deny Bartlett's motion to dismiss because the district court extended Riley's time to note an appeal, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.