Case Name: Jefferson ELIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-25
Citations: 452 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 11-6890
Parties: Jefferson ELIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Jefferson ELIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6890.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 4, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2011.
Jefferson Elie, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jefferson Elie seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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.A. § 686(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Elie 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). Elie 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.
In any event, the district court's conclusion that Elie's petition was untimely is correct, and thus independently supports dismissal of this appeal.