                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-1232


KEVIN SCHAAP,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

SUSAN STOKLEY CLARY; SUSAN STOKLEY CLARY, in her official capacity
as clerk of the Supreme Court; SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY;
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,

                    Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:16-cv-02778-CMC)


Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: July 31, 2017


Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin Schaap, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Kevin Schaap appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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 Schaap 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. See Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Schaap has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the

particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge 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




                                            2
