
    Michael Alexander RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INFERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, Alhambra Courthouse et al, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-6343
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 29, 2017
    Decided: September 22, 2017
    Michael Alexander Rivera,- Appellant Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Alexander Rivera appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 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 the district court dismiss Rivera’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction - and advised Rivera that failure to file timely, specific 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). Rivera failed to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Rivera’s motions for transcript at government expense and for appointment of a process server. 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 
      
       Although Rivera submitted two filings within the designated time period, none of the pleadings challenged the basis for the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007) ("[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's réport, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.”).
     