
    Peter Dudley ALBERTSEN, II, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 06-6104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 20, 2006.
    Decided: April 26, 2006.
    Peter Dudley Albertsen, II, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Peter Dudley Albertsen, II, appeals a district court final order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The magistrate judge recommended relief be denied and advised Albertsen that failure to file timely objections to the report could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Albertsen failed to file objections.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of failing to object. 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). Albertsen waived appellate review by failing to file 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. 
      
      . There is no evidence in the record Albertsen informed the court of his change of address until he filed his notice of appeal.
     