
    Marion BRIDGES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan DOVE, Warden, FCI Edgefield, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7913.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    April 22, 2003.
    Submitted April 17, 2003.
    Decided April 22, 2003.
    Marion Bridges, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Marion Bridges appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 that relief be denied and advised Bridges 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, Bridges 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 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). Bridges 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.  