UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

IVAN TAYLOR, a/k/a Carlos,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-89-9, CA-94-1523-3-6BC)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., As- sistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo-

tion filed under

(1994), amended by Antiterrorism 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 the

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation 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 recom-

mendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub-

stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985); United States v.

Schronce,

(4th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1984); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after

receiving proper notice.* We accordingly deny a certificate of ap-

pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

* To the extent that Appellant contends he did not receive a copy of the magistrate judge's report, the proper avenue for relief from the judgment is a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in the district court.

2 the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-

sional process.

DISMISSED

3