
    Elridge Vanderhorst HILLS, a/k/a Elridge V. Hills, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NFN FARR, Lieutenant at Tyger River Correctional Institution; James Bates, Lieutenant at Tyger River Correctional Institution; Laughter, Lieutenant at Tyger River Correctional Institution; Joseph Smith, Sergeant at Tyger River Correctional Institution; NFN Ammons, Correctional Officer at Tyger River Correctional Institution; Michael Fowler, Inmate Grievance Coordinator at Tyger River Correctional Institution; Gooch, Captain at Tyger River Correctional Institution; NFN Coates, Sergeant at Tyger River Correctional Institution; Correctional Officer Lingerfelt, Tyger River Correctional Institution; Richard Smith, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; Loyd, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; Donald Dease, Former Regional Director of Division 2, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-7634.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 29, 2007.
    Decided: Feb. 15, 2007.
    Elridge Vanderhorst Hills, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Nikole Deanna Haltiwanger, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Riley Pope & Laney, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Elridge V. Hills appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Hills 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, Hills failed to timely 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 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). Hills 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  