
    Daniel L. STALEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Ricky Harrison, Warden, in his official capacity; Lieutenant Seward, in his individual capacity; Lieutenant Miller, in his individual capacity; Lieutenant Jenkins, in his individual capacity, Defendants—Appellees. Daniel L. Staley, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doe Seward, Lieutenant in unofficial capacity; Ricky Harrison, Warden in official capacity; Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees. Daniel L. Staley, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kershaw Correctional Institution; Lieutenant Miller; Ricky Harrison, Warden, in his official capacity; Lieutenant Jenkins, Defendants—Appellees.
    Nos. 04-7303, 04-7304, 04-7305.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
    Decided: Feb. 2, 2005.
    
      Daniel L. Staley, Appellant pro se.
    Matthew Penn Engen, McCutchen, Blanton, Johnson & Barnette, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel L. Staley appeals from the orders of the district court in these three actions, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The district court referred these cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(3) (2000). In each case the magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000), and advised Staley that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on the recommendation. Despite this warning, in each case Staley failed to file specific objections 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). Staley has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 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  