
    Cheryl A. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James TAYLOR; John O’Donald; Darrell Betsill, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-1479.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 29, 2005.
    
      Cheryl A. Davidson, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, Gignilliat, Savitz & Bettis, Columbia, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley, Vinton D. Lide & Associates, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Cheryl A. Davidson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Davidson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) suit. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended granting summary judgment to Defendants. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, finding that Davidson failed to file specific objections.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 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). On appeal, Davidson does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that her objections were merely general. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of that claim). Accordingly, we conclude that Davidson has waived appellate review of both the substance of the magistrate judge’s report and the district court’s construction of her objections.

Thus, we affirm the order 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  