
    Isaac A. BLAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Billy Lee Lisenby, a/k/a Malik A. Al-Shabazz; William Lamont Scurry, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; W.D. Catoe, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Geraldine Miro, Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution; McKither Bodison, Associate Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution; Kenneth Greene, Sergeant; L. Terry, Correctional Officer; Ken Long, Grievance Clerk; Ann Hallman, Grievance Clerk; Betsy Albritton, Captain; Joseph Deloach, Captain; E. Smith, Correctional Officer; B.J. Thomas, Counsel Substitute; Benjamin Montgomery, Deputy Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-6448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 27, 2001.
    Isaac A. Blake, Pro Se. Robert Douglas Simmons Mellard, Bogoslow & Jones, Wal-terboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Isaac A. Blake appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 West Supp.2001) complaint. Blake’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Blake 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, Blake failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of 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. 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). Blake 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.  