                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7884



RICKY D. SANDERS, SR.,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


MAGISTRATE COURT OF SUMTER, care of Magistrate
Tindal; SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, care of
Chief Patty Patterson; JUDGE R. GRAY, Sumter
Family Court; SUMTER FAMILY COURT, care of Mr.
Smith,

                                              Defendants - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(0:06-cv-02299-MBS)


Submitted:   April 19, 2007                 Decided:   April 23, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricky D. Sanders, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Ricky D. Sanders, Sr. appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on 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 Sanders 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, Sanders 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 (1985). Sanders 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




                              - 2 -
