
    Herman GADESON, a/k/a Herman Gadsen, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REYNOLDS, Warden; Jon Ozmint, Director; Robert Ward, Divisional Director all in their official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-8211.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 19, 2010.
    Decided Aug. 26, 2010.
    
      Herman Gadeson, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, Scott & Payne Law Firm, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Herman Gadeson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gadeson that failure to file timely and specific 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). Gadeson 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.  