Cheryl J. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vernon D. BEATTY; Brenda Lyles; Chief Fischer; Tyrone Gilmore; Audrey Grant, Doctor; Joyce Lipscomb; City-County of Spartanburg; B. Barnet, Mayor; Shevelle Porter, Weed See Board of Directors; Governor Sanford; U.S. Hud; Spartanburg Housing Authority; OCR-ATL; Sen Glenn Reese; U.S. Bob Inglis; COP-Police Program; Save the Children Intern.; Great Prev Program Director; Americory Vista Foster Grandpart; Butch James Greer; Grey Tolbert; Cheryl Harleston; Park & Recreation; Dale Wells; Present Community Rel. Chp; Interim Dir Jeter; Mary Jeter, wife; Benjamin Wright; Paula Wiggs; Staff-Board of Directors STTA; Mary Thomas; Spartanburg County Foundation; Christine Oglesby; Ben Snoddy, Reverend; Lieutenant Governor Bauer, Defendants-Appellees, 332 F. App'x 849

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cheryl J. Jones appeals the district court’s order adopting and affirming the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss her civil complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Jones 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, Jones 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). Jones has waived appellate review by failing to file any 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.