Case Name: Bradley TODD, a/k/a Leamon Bradley Todd, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; Central Intelligence Agency; State of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-02
Citations: 193 F. App'x 204
Docket Number: No. 06-1163
Parties: Bradley TODD, a/k/a Leamon Bradley Todd, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; Central Intelligence Agency; State of South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 204–204

Head Matter:
Bradley TODD, a/k/a Leamon Bradley Todd, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; Central Intelligence Agency; State of South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-1163.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2006.
Bradley Todd, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bradley Todd appeals the district court's order denying .relief on 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 Todd 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, Todd 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 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). Todd has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.