
    Davis YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; M. Whipple, Captain; Ronald Jacques, Major; P. Douglas Taylor, Warden; Margaret Harrison, Dho; Jane Doe; John Doe, all sued in their individual capacities; Bernice Smith, Sergeant; Aron Brown, Sergeant; T. Alexander, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-6196.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 18, 2002.
    Decided April 30, 2002.
    Davis Young, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, Francesca Macchiaverna, Law Office of Duffie Stone, Bluffton, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Davis Young appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-6 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file 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.  