
    Henry W. MARTIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cpt. Myecha MILEY, Defendant-Appellee, and William R. Byars; John R. Pate; Arthur A. Jordan; McKenndly Newton; Robert E. Ward; Jon Ozmint; Dennis Patterson; Daniel Murphy; David M. Tatarsky; Lt. J. Carujo; Lt J. Carter; Robert Orr; Lt. James Rump; Captain E.J. Miller; Dr. Thomas Bynse; Lt Varlease Black; Cpl L. Jenkins; M. Hudson; S. Singlaton, Dho; Cpl T. Simpson; Mr. McQueen; P. Smith; A. Hollman; Helen Freeman; Thomas Scott; Cpt E. James; Tanya A. Gee; V. Claire Allen; John C. Few; Wayne C. McCabe; Jill Beattie; Jeannette Mack; Francine Bauchman; Patty Britt Posey; James S. Sligh, Jr.; Dr. Rowland; Gregory S. Line; Charlotte Smith; Ellen Goodwin; Russell Rush; Jim Crosby; Susan Barden; Virginia Crocker; Pam Smith; Laketa Dika; Deborah B. Durden, Defendants.
    No. 15-6769.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 23, 2015.
    Decided: July 28, 2015.
    Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Freeman, Sr., Griffith, Sharp & Liipfert, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry W. Martin, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 Martin that failure to file timely 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). Martin has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED.  