UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7541
STEPHEN C. STANKO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina De-
partment of Corrections; WILLIE WELDON, Warden
of Lieber Correctional Institution; RICKIE
HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correctional
Institution; ROBIN CHAVIS, Associate Warden of
Kershaw Correctional Institution; STANLEY
BURTT, Warden of Kershaw Correctional
Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-98-2461-4-13BF)
Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 15, 2001
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen C. Stanko, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, Rock Hill,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephen C. Stanko appeals the district court’s order dismiss-
ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Stanko’s
case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that re-
lief be denied and advised Stanko that failure to file specific
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Stanko failed to file specific objections to the magis-
trate 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. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Stanko has waived appellate
review by failing to 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
2