Case Name: Samuel C. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon C. BANKS, Attorney, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-30
Citations: 101 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: No. 04-6136
Parties: Samuel C. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon C. BANKS, Attorney, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 902–902

Head Matter:
Samuel C. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon C. BANKS, Attorney, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-6136.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2004.
Decided: June 30, 2004.
Samuel C. Davis, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Samuel C. Davis appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice 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 Davis that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Davis failed to object to the magistrate judge's 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Davis has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Davis' motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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