                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7301



DAVID DWIGHT SMITH,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


LARRY POWERS,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-cv-02497-GRA)


Submitted: November 15, 2006              Decided:   November 22, 2006


Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Dwight Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE,
BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          David Dwight Smith appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Smith that failure to file timely

specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Smith failed to file specific objections 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).   Smith 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 deny

Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel.

          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 -
