UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6839
HEYWARD CECIL DEMPSEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Assistant Solicitor;
BARBARA WALTERS, Investigator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-00-1056-4-20-BF)
Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Heyward Cecil Dempsey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Heyward Cecil Dempsey appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action without
prejudice. Dempsey’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 Dempsey that the
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Dempsey 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, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Dempsey has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accord-
ingly, 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
2