
    Gary L. WISE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael SHEEDY, Warden; Mr. Ickers, Mailroom Clerk; Mr. Bagnal, Principal; Mr. Rainwater; Officer Ham; Librarian Holiday; Major Blackwell; M. Hestle; Sergeant Gardner, Defendants—Appellees. and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.
    No. 05-7187.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 22, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 7, 2005.
    
      Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, Lee, Erter, Wilson, James, Holler & Smith, L.L.C., Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Gary L. Wise appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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 construing Wise’s motion for leave to exhaust administrative remedies as a motion to dismiss without prejudice and granting the motion. The magistrate judge also advised Wise that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Wise failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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 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). Wise has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny Wise’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an injunction. 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  