Case Name: Elvin Clifford WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob ROBERTS, Director and Chief of Police, West Virginia University, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-25
Citations: 583 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 14-1542
Parties: Elvin Clifford WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob ROBERTS, Director and Chief of Police, West Virginia University, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Elvin Clifford WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob ROBERTS, Director and Chief of Police, West Virginia University, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-1542.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 23, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 25, 2014.
Elvin Clifford Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Shawn Kleeh, Joseph Umber-to Leonoro, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elvin Clifford Watkins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Watkins 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). Watkins has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We deny Watkins' motion to strike the Appellee's informal reply brief.
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.
DISMISSED.