UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                           No. 06-1919



GEORGIA GRIMES,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
Security; ROBERT J. PHARES; RALPH P. DOBBS;
YVETTE RAINEE; CYNTHIA MOORE, Guard; EMPLOYEES
OF HEARING AND APPEALS IN RALEIGH,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00160-H)


Submitted: December 21, 2006              Decided:   December 28, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Georgia Grimes, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Georgia    Grimes   appeals    the   district   court’s   order

dismissing her civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.      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 the

complaint be dismissed and advised Grimes 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, Grimes 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,

, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 

 (1985).    Grimes 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 -