UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6225

WALTER JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner S.C.D.C.; FRANKIE RICKENBAKER, Warden; EVELYN WARDLAW, Social Worker; FRANK HARRISON, Chief; PAUL BOLLMAN, Captain; SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON BOARD; MR. SMITH, Classification Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-398-21BD)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas McKay, Jr., Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, MCKAY, HENRY & FOSTER, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PRO- BATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ap- pellant that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appel- lant failed to file specific objections 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny Appellant's request for production of docu- ments and 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