
    Patricia SAWASKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian Wallace BRIAN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-1430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
    Decided: Sept. 14, 2009.
    
      Patricia Sawasky, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Sawasky, who proceeds in for-ma pauperis, appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action against Defendant. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). After conducting a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006) review, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sawasky that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Sawasky failed to file 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). Sawasky has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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. 
      
       Instead, Sawasky filed a "Motion to Change the Judge," in which she summarily stated that she disagreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation.
     