
    Loretta L. SAMUEL; William R. Samuel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ESPN, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and FIFA, 8044 Zurich Switzerland; Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., St. Louis; Adidas America, Inc., Portland, Oregon; Hyundai Motor America, F. Valley Ca.; Federation Internationale De Football Association, Defendants.
    No. 13-1675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 30, 2013.
    Decided: Oct. 15, 2013.
    
      Loretta L. Samuel, William R. Samuel, Appellants Pro Se. Tamar Y. Duvdevani, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, New York, New York; Larry Dwight Floyd, Jr., Lawrence Michael Hershon, Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Loretta L. and William R. Samuel appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on the Samuels’s copyright infringement action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Plaintiffs that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Plaintiffs 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 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). The Plaintiffs have waived appellate review of their claims 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.  