Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sylvester Blaine COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-02
Citations: 51 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 02-7236
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sylvester Blaine COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sylvester Blaine COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7236.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2002.
Decided Dec. 2, 2002.
Sylvester Blaine Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant Umted States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sylvester Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). 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 Coleman that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, and although he was given an extension of time to do so, Coleman 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Coleman 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.