Case Name: Benjamin YANCEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer ELLIS; Correctional Officer Harellel; Sergeant, Correctional Officer, Stearn, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-18
Citations: 210 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 06-7140
Parties: Benjamin YANCEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer ELLIS; Correctional Officer Harellel; Sergeant, Correctional Officer, Stearn, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
Benjamin YANCEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer ELLIS; Correctional Officer Harellel; Sergeant, Correctional Officer, Stearn, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-7140.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.
Benjamin Yancey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Yancey 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 Yancey 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, Yancey 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). Yancey 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.