UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7806

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

LEEMAC, INCORPORATED; AMBER, INCORPORATED; BRYSON ACCOUNTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; EJ & WM, INCORPORATED; LAW OFFICES OF KENYON & LUSK; TAX LIEN ACQUISITIONS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-2883-6-20AK)

Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

William Bryson appeals from the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his petition filed under

(2000). The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Bryson 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, Bryson failed to file

specific objections to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Bryson 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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3