Dorothy Ann Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommenda *997 tion of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Although the district court noted that Jones failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report, the record does not reflect that Jones was notified of her right to file objections or of the consequences for failing to do so. We conclude, however, that the magistrate judge correctly found Jones’ action barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, to the extent the district court indicated it reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation de novo and adopted it, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Angelone, No. CA-00-850 (E.D.Va. Aug. 5, 2002). 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.