Case Name: Dorothy M. JEFFRIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CHAVIS, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-20
Citations: 361 F. App'x 489
Docket Number: No. 09-2285
Parties: Dorothy M. JEFFRIES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William CHAVIS, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 489–489

Head Matter:
Dorothy M. JEFFRIES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William CHAVIS, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 09-2285.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2010.
Dorothy M. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dorothy Jeffries appeals the district court's order denying relief on her personal property damage complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Jeffries 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, Jeffries failed to make timely, specific objections 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). Jeffries has waived appellate review by filing objections that were neither timely nor specific to the magistrate judge's recommendation, after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Jef-fries's motion for a transcript at government expense and 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.