UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6668



CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,


                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(3:05-cv-00749-RBH)


Submitted: August 31, 2006                  Decided: September 7, 2006


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.           Marvin Jennings
Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney,         Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Curtis Dale Richardson appeals the district court’s order

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 Richardson 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, Richardson 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). Richardson 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 -