The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7775
JABORIE BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, ESTILL,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Junior, District
Judge. (4:07-cv-02677-HMH)
Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jaborie Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaborie Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals from the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing, without prejudice, his petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). 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 Brown that failure to file timely,
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Brown failed to file specific objections to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation; he only proffered non-
specific objections and restated the claims raised in his petition.
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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brown 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
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -