Case Name: Lyndon B. TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee, and SCDC, Intity, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-15
Citations: 3 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 00-7673
Parties: Lyndon B. TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee, and SCDC, Intity, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
Lyndon B. TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calvin ANTHONY, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee, and SCDC, Intity, Defendant.
No. 00-7673.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 2001.
Decided Feb. 15, 2001.
Lyndon B. Tisdale, pro se. John Evans James, III, Richardson & James, Sumter, SC, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lyndon B. Tisdale appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Tisdale's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Tisdale 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, Tisdale failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. 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). Tisdale 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 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.