UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6927

RONALD FLOYD JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN R. HUNT; LEROY MCDOWELL; DAVID T. PHILLIPS, III,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-95-3824-4-OBE)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Floyd Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King, WILL- COX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina; David T. Phillips, III, Myrtle Beach, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders dismissing his

(1994) complaint and declining to reconsider that

dismissal. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that fail-

ure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommen-

dation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of 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,

(4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn,

(1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the district

court's order declining to reconsider the dismissal of the action

on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. That order is

affirmed on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. Hunt,

No. CA-95-3824-4-OBE (D.S.C. May 30, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3