PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge; Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00031-BO; 5:11-cv-00036-H)
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:11-cv-00016-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00018-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00015-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00019-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00013-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00014-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00017-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00011-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00012-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00020-RBS-DEM)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00035-D)
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:11-cv-00006-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00008-RBS-DEM; 4:11-cv-00009-RBS-DEM)
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district courts' orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district courts. Davis v. Durham, No. 5:11-cv-0036-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2011); Davis v. Pembroke, No. 4:11-cv-00016-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00018-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00015-cv-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Jaworski, No. 4:11-cv-00019-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00013-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00014-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. Crouthermel, No. 4:11-cv-00017-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00011-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Singer, No. 4:11-cv-00012-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Chasse, No. 4:11-cv-0020-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Town of Cary North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00006-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2011); Davis v. Wake Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., No. 4:11-cv-00008-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2011); Davis v. Vick, No. 4:11-cv-00009-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2011).
In appeals 11-1386 and 11-1463, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the district courts in these appeals. 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