Case Name: Robert Cecil BOOKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sergeant JARRETT; Other Unknown Correctional Officers, at the South Central Regional Jail, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-26
Citations: 164 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 05-7676
Parties: Robert Cecil BOOKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sergeant JARRETT; Other Unknown Correctional Officers, at the South Central Regional Jail, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
Robert Cecil BOOKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sergeant JARRETT; Other Unknown Correctional Officers, at the South Central Regional Jail, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7676.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
Robert Cecil Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Mario Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Cecil Booker appeals the district court's order dismissing 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 Booker 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, Booker 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Booker 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