
    Juanita HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-2084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 2006.
    Decided: June 5, 2006.
    Juanita Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Anita K. Henry, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Juanita Hall appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in Hall’s 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000) suit. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended granting summary judgment to Defendants. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, finding that Hall failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 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, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). On appeal, Hall does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that she failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of that claim). Accordingly, we conclude that Hall has waived appellate review of the substance of the magistrate judge’s report.

Thus we affirm the order 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 
      
       We have construed Hall's informal appellate brief as a notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).
     