Case Name: Brenda NESBITT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 600 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 14-7896
Parties: Brenda NESBITT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 161–161

Head Matter:
Brenda NESBITT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7896.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: April 28, 2015.
Brenda Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Nesbitt seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Nesbitt 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Nesbitt has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.