Case Name: Dayal PARDASANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Paige Corkhill, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-01
Citations: 108 F. App'x 101
Docket Number: No. 04-1431
Parties: Dayal PARDASANI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Paige Corkhill, Defendant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
Dayal PARDASANI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Paige Corkhill, Defendant.
No. 04-1431.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2004.
Decided Sept. 1, 2004.
Dayal Pardasani, Appellant pro se. Cecil Webster Harrison, Jr., David Lester Woodard, Poyner & Spruill, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dayal Pardasani appeals the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination 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 Pardasani 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, Pardasani 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). Pardasani 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