James R. Rose appeals the district courts order denying relief on his amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (RLUIPA). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Rose that failure to file timely, specific 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 judges recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Appellee has moved to dismiss Roses appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Rose has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judges recommendation after receiving proper notice. The waiver of appellate rights based on a failure to object to a magistrate judges recommendation is a prudential rule rather than a jurisdictional bar. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 146, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466. On this record, we deny Appellees motion. However, because we agree that Rose has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judges recommendation after receiving proper notice, we nevertheless affirm the judgment of the district court on that basis.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.