
    Curlee SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bristow MARCHANT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-1334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 9; 2004.
    Decided June 24, 2004.
    Curlee Sherman, Appellant pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Curlee Sherman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 that relief be denied and advised Sherman 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, Sherman faded 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). Sherman has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- ' quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED  