Case Name: Darrell THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Mr. Summers, Superintendent; Mr. Stanback, Asst. Superintendent, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-30
Citations: 606 F. App'x 113
Docket Number: No. 15-6524
Parties: Darrell THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Mr. Summers, Superintendent; Mr. Stanback, Asst. Superintendent, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
Darrell THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Mr. Summers, Superintendent; Mr. Stanback, Asst. Superintendent, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6524.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2015.
Decided: June 30, 2015.
Darrell Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Thompson appeals the district court's order denying relief without prejudice 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 Thompson 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Thompson 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 becaúse the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid .the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.