                                   UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                     No. 17-6325


LARRY JAMES TYLER,

                   Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

WAYNE BYRD,

                   Defendant - Appellee,

             and

PAUL M. BURCH; JAMES BOGLE; J. RICHARD JONES,

                   Defendants.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:16-cv-00400-MGL)


Submitted: July 20, 2017                                     Decided: July 25, 2017


Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK &
WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

      Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Tyler that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

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). Tyler

waived appellate review by failing to file 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                             AFFIRMED




                                            3
