Case Name: Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONWAY HOSPITAL; Loris Community Hospital, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-02
Citations: 169 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 05-7423
Parties: Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CONWAY HOSPITAL; Loris Community Hospital, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 765–765

Head Matter:
Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CONWAY HOSPITAL; Loris Community Hospital, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7423.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided: March 2, 2006.
Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clayton Tisdale seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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 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 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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