
    Willie James ASBURY, a/k/a Sa’id Abdullah Al’Rashid, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David TARTARSKY; Don Driskell; Joette Scarborough; Dennis Bush; Sharonda Sutton; Gregory Washington; Dr. J. Tomarchio; Nurse Smith, a/k/a Takisha Smith; Nurse Monroe, a/k/a Yvonne Munro; Lieutenant Copeland, a/k/a Dock Copeland, IV; Sergeant Cunningham, a/k/a Patricia Cunningham, Defendants-Appellees, John Kinard; James Barber, III; Joseph McCrorey; David Norton, Defendants.
    No. 15-6650.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 9, 2015.
    Decided: Sept. 14, 2015.
    Willie J. Asbury, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Todd Russell Flippin, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie James Asbury appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Asbury that failure to file objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). By failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation with regard to some of his claims, after receiving proper notice, Asbury has waived appellate review of those claims.

With regard to the claims to which As-bury filed specific objections, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Asbury v. Tartarsky, No. 8:13-cv-03364-RMG, 2015 WL 1120081 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  