
    Peder HALVORSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. PURANIK; Beckley Arh Hospital, Defendants-Appellees. Peder D. Halvorson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raleigh General Hospital, 1710 Harper Road, Beckley, WV 25801, Defendant-Appellee. Peder Halvorson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beckley Arh Hospital, Beckley, WV 25802, Defendant-Appellee. Peder Halvorson, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Christopher Halvorson, Witness; Josh Fakess, Witness, Plaintiffs, v. Beckley City Police; Badge # 229; Officer Wilhite, and the Officer Called for Backup, Defendants-Appellees. Peder Dwayne Halvorson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.O. Othman, M.D., RCP, Board Certified in Neurology, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 13-2155, 13-2156, 13-2157, 13-2158, 13-2159.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 14, 2013.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2013.
    Peder Halvorson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Peder Halvorson appeals the district court’s judgments adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations and dismissing his complaints. The district court referred the cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaints be dismissed for failing to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) (2012). The magistrate judge advised Halvorson that the failure to file timely objections to the reports 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). Halvorson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  