Case Name: Joseph N. BRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, POLICE DEPARTMENT; Buncome County Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-27
Citations: 172 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 05-1913
Parties: Joseph N. BRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, POLICE DEPARTMENT; Buncome County Sheriff, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
Joseph N. BRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, POLICE DEPARTMENT; Buncome County Sheriff, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1913.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 27, 2006.
Joseph N. Briggs, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis W. Euler, City Attorney’s Office, Asheville, North Carolina; Julie M. Kepple, Buncombe County Sheriffs Department, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph N. Briggs 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 Briggs 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, Briggs 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 failure to object. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845^6 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Briggs has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after re ceiving 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
In response to the magistrate judge's report, Briggs filed a notice of appeal. That notice of appeal was interlocutory when filed; however, the district court's subsequent entry of judgment prior to this court's consideration of the appeal cures the defect in jurisdiction. See Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir.1992). Moreover, Briggs filed a second notice of appeal following the district court's entry of final judgment.