
    Bobby J. OLDHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK; Boyd Bennett; Michael W. York; Joseph G. Pickelsimer; North Carolina Department of Correction; Dennis M. Rowland, Special Assistant to the Director of Prisons; Jennifer H. Langley, Assistant Superintendent for Custody and Operations at Albemarle Correctional Institution; John Davis, Unit Manager at Albemarle; Mr. Cook, Programmer at Albemarle; Captain Strickland; Todd W. Pinion, Assistant Superintendent, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-6384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 29, 2005.
    Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.
    
      Bobby J. Oldham, Appellant pro se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assistant Attorney General; James Philip Allen, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Bobby J. Oldham appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir.1997); 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).

Oldham has waived appellate review of the magistrate judge’s conclusion regarding the objective component of the test to establish an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim based upon exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by failing to specifically object. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-36, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (discussing Eighth Amendment standard); Odom v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir.2003) (same). 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  