Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DUNLAP, Associate Warden; Mingo, Sergeant; Lis Andrelli, Sergeant; J. Brown, Dho; Warden Faulkenberry, Kershaw Correctional Institution; IGC Hardin, SCDC Medical; Lieutenant Hartwell; Captain Hudson; Mr. Armstrong, Counsel; Sergeant Barnes; Sergeant Bowers; Sergeant Calloway; Officer Collins; Doris Ann Cooke; Lieutenant Dubois; Lieutenant Durant; Officer Gordon; Mrs. Hasting; Major Neismith; Sharon Patterson; Mr. Sanders; Sergeant Sapp; Lieutenant Smith; Sergeant Thompson; Usda; Lieutenant Waltz; Mrs. West; D. Whitford; Michelle Usher, Nurse; South Carolina Department of Corrections Medical Facility; Captain Seward; Officer Taylor; Officer Plow; Mrs. Henson; Sergeant Catoe; Sergeant Rollins; Jon Ozmint, Director; Kershaw Correctional Institution, Medical Staff; Officer Ray; Officer Eden; Sergeant Murray; Samantha Gardner; Officer Dailey; Officer Davis; Lieutenant Richardson; Mr. Stevens, Defendants-Appellees, 212 F. App'x 212

PER CURIAM: Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Odom that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Odom failed to 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 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). Odom 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.