¶1 William C. McKinnedy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 McKinnedy 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, McKinnedy failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
¶2*514 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). McKinnedy has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
¶3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing McKinnedy’s claims. We deny McKinnedy’s “Motion for a Time Enlargement and/or Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” 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.
¶4 AFFIRMED