Case Name: William PETERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden MCCI, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-24
Citations: 312 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 08-7521
Parties: William PETERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden MCCI, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
William PETERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden MCCI, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7521.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 19, 2009.
Decided: Feb. 24, 2009.
William Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Peterson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Peterson that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Peterson failed to object 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 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). Peterson 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.
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.