
    Johnathan JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert WOODS, Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-2116-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 17, 2011.
    
      Johnathan Johnson, Malone, NY, pro se.
    Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Solicitor General, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RALPH K. WINTER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Johnathan Johnson, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees and dismissing Johnson’s complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

A litigant’s failure to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, even when that litigant is proceeding pro se, waives any challenge to the report on appeal. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”). A pro se litigant must be given notice of this rule; notice is sufficient if it informs the litigant that the failure to timely object will result in the waiver of further judicial review and cites pertinent statutory and civil rules authority. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 299 (2d Cir.1992); Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.1989) {pro se party’s failure to object to report and recommendation does not waive right to appellate review unless report explicitly states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and specifically cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a), and former 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

Here, the magistrate judge gave Johnson adequate notice that he was required to file any objections to the report and recommendation, and specifically informed him that failure to object to any portion of the report would preclude his right to appellate review, citing the pertinent statutory and civil rules. Nonspecific objections that merely refer the Court to previously filed papers or arguments are insufficient to preserve appellate review. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, 313 F.3d 758, 767 (2d Cir.2002).

In any event, we see no error in the district court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  