UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7255

ORA THOMPSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Cor- rectional Center; CARL E. LEGURSKY, Former Warden, W.V.P.; GEORGE TRENT, Warden, W.V.P./ Mt. Olive Correctional Center; NICHOLAS J. HUN, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-563-2)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: November 1, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ora Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismiss-

ing his petition filed under

(1994), amended by Antiterroism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) (1994). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommen-

dation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of 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. Wright v.

Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn,

(1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

2