UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM JAMES COPELAND,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-7976

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-95-1668-0-3BD)

Submitted: August 30, 1996

Decided: September 13, 1996

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William James Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief

on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, seeking relief from his convictions for

attempted armed robbery, assault and battery with intent to kill, and

possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony. We dismiss.

Appellant claimed that he was entitled to habeas relief because his

attorney was ineffective and because his confession was allegedly

coerced in some unexplained manner. Turning to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Appellant alleges that his attorney was ineffective because: (1) he told Appellant to plead guilty despite

Appellant's assertion that he had no prior knowledge that a crime was

going to occur;1 (2) he forced Appellant to plead guilty by telling him

that if he went to trial he would lose and be sentenced to forty-five

years, but if he pled guilty the prosecution would recommend twenty

years;2 (3) during the plea and sentencing hearing he falsely stated

that Appellant knew that his co-defendant possessed a gun; and (4) he

failed to object to police testimony concerning whether Appellant

accompanied his co-defendant on a trip to obtain a gun prior to the

robbery. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error as to claims (1), (2), and (4). Accordingly, we dismiss

those claims on the reasoning of the district court. Copeland v. South

Carolina, No. CA-95-1668-0-3BD (D. S.C. Oct. 30, 1995). Address-

_________________________________________________________________

1 In relation to this claim Appellant also argues that he cannot be guilty

of attempted armed robbery and assault and battery because he did not

personally possess or use a weapon.

2 Related to this claim is the allegation that the attorney was not prepared for trial, thereby ensuring a loss if the case were to proceed.

 2
ing Appellant's remaining ineffective assistance claim we find that,

even assuming the allegations constitute deficient performance,

Appellant has failed to demonstrate the prejudice necessary to prevail.

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (providing standard).

Turning finally to Appellant's coerced confession claim, we find

that Appellant failed to mention this claim in his objections to the

magistrate judge's recommendations and report despite warning that

such a failure could result in a waiver of appellate review. 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, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Accordingly, because of Appellant's failure following proper notice

we do not review this claim.

Given the foregoing disposition we deny a certificate of probable

cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal.3 To the extent that a certificate

of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate as well. 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

_________________________________________________________________

3 We also deny Appellant's motion for general relief.

 3