
    Edward B. BENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Levi Lingard; William Weathers, Plaintiffs, v. Al CANNON, Jr., Esquire; Reggie Tripplett, Doctor, National Commission of Health Care, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-6986.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 18, 2006.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2006.
    Edward B. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald, Charleston, South Carolina; Theresa Johnson Leinbach, Theresa Johnson Leinbach Law Office, Charleston, South Carolina; Robert Holmes Hood, Hood Law Firm, Charleston, South Carolina; John K. Blincow, Jr., Robert Gerald Chambers, Jr., Ashley S. Heslop, Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Edward B. Bennett 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 granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and advised Bennett 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, Bennett failed to 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). Bennett has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny Bennett’s motion for appointment of counsel, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. Because, however, Bennett’s action was dismissed upon a grant of summary judgment to the Defendants, we modify the district court’s order to the extent it assessed a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000), to delete that assessment. 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 AS MODIFIED.  