Case Name: Nicholas DEALY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARDSON, Captain; Commonwealth Attorney; Judge Learner, Hampton City Circuit Court; Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; John & Jane Doe, and all deputies that worked the floor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-03
Citations: 164 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 05-7533
Parties: Nicholas DEALY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. RICHARDSON, Captain; Commonwealth Attorney; Judge Learner, Hampton City Circuit Court; Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; John & Jane Doe, and all deputies that worked the floor, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 445–445

Head Matter:
Nicholas DEALY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. RICHARDSON, Captain; Commonwealth Attorney; Judge Learner, Hampton City Circuit Court; Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; John & Jane Doe, and all deputies that worked the floor, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7533.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided Feb. 3, 2006.
Nicholas Dealy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Dealy seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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 Dealy 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, Dealy 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). Dealy 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