Gina M. Flores-Claridy appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security upon the determination that substantial evidence supported the denial of Flores-Claridy’s application for insurance benefits on behalf of heir son. The district court referred this crlse to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 (U.G.O. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be ¡denied and advised Flores-Claridy that failure > file timely objections to this ree urmer - ation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, -Flores-Claridy failed to specifically 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 *711 when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. 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). Flores-Claridy has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.