
    M. Rodney JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fnu ADAMS, Mailroom Supervisor; Debra Barnwell, Internal Affairs Director, Defendants-Appellees, and R. Daniels, Sergeant; S. Karpa, Corrections Officer; Jamie L. Dickinson, Corrections Officer, Defendants.
    No. 02-7711.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 18, 2003.
    M. Rodney Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Lee, Aiken Bridges, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

M. Rodney Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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 and advised Jones 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, Jones failed to direct his objections to the district court in a timely manner.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation in the district court 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. 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). Jones has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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. 
      
       The magistrate judge also advised Jones that the objections were to be directed to the district court. Based on Jones’ numerous filings before that court, we are satisfied that Jones was well familiar with the address for the clerk’s office. Moreover, Jones does not challenge on appeal the district court’s finding that his untimely objections were erroneously served on this court, and were not served on the district court. Thus, he has waived review of this finding. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
     