
    Theodore Thomas WAGNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer Monica HAMPTON, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Ruth Daugherty, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Donald Simmons, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; La Toshia Spearing, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; Paycomputermonitoring.com, all in their Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees, National Child Protection Training Center, Movant-Appellee.
    No. 14-1876.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 18, 2014.
    Decided: Dec. 22, 2014.
    
      Carolina; Jenna Kiziah McGee, Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; John Francis Kup-pens, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Theodore Thomas Wagner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wagner that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommenda-tion 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). Wagner has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  