
    John Roosevelt BACCUS, a/k/a John Baccus, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill BYARS, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections SCDC; Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina; Jean Hoefer Toal, Chief Justice of South Carolina Supreme Court; Leroy Cartledge, Warden; Lewis A. Scott; Frank Mursier; Major Steven; James Parker, Capt.; Warden Yarbough, Asso.; Joyce Young, Cpl.; J. Franklin, Mailroom; Terry; Sergeant Jones, Classification; Cambell; Sergeant Moss, Food Supervisor; Marcia Fuller, RD; N. Barber; Sen Champlin; Nurse Andrews; Nurse James; J. McCree, Physician; Elizabeth Walker, Adm. Specialist; Coreene, Correctional Officer C-O; Ms. Lewis, Dental; Ms. Hines, Dental; Lieutenant Wright; Sergeant Wright; Ms. Bell; Lt. Thomplins; Ms. Lee, Co; Mr. Beggs, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-7426.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 31, 2012.
    Decided: Feb. 3, 2012.
    John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

John Roosevelt Baccus appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Baccus that failure to file timely 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). Baccus has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny Baccus’s motions for injunctive relief pending appeal, emergency intervention, and for release. 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.  