In No. 07-6063, Michael Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Owens 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, Owens failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 1

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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Owens has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

In No. 07-6603, Owens appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The district court denied the motion based on its finding that Owens’ notice of appeal in case number 2:06-cv-00639-GRA was untimely. Because Owens noted a timely appeal from the denial of his § 2254 petition, 2 however, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and vacate the order of the district court.

*325 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.

No. 07-6063—DISMISSED.

No. 07-6603—VACATED.