Case Name: Noel GRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-06
Citations: 474 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: No. 12-6357
Parties: Noel GRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 130–130

Head Matter:
Noel GRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 6, 2012.
Noel Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Noel Gray seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gray that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 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). Gray has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Gray's pending motion to appoint counsel, 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.