Timothy Dexter Walton, Plaintiff Appellant, v. W. Q. Overton; Vicki Meadors, Defendants Appellees,and Franklin County Jail; Franklin County Jail Staff, Defendants, 28 F.3d 1212 (4th Cir. 1994)

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to factual findings of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and instead raised only one legal issue.^*  Accordingly, the district court was not required to conduct de novo review of the evidence. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); Braxton v. Estelle, 641 F.2d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 1981).

The timely filing of specific factual objections to a magistrate judge's findings and 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to 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