Case Name: Jason Hugh Denalt HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-23
Citations: 33 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 01-7766
Parties: Jason Hugh Denalt HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 83–83

Head Matter:
Jason Hugh Denalt HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 01-7766.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2002.
Decided April 23, 2002.
Jason Hugh Denalt Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jason Hugh Denalt Hunt seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Hunt's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hunt 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 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). Further, a litigant may forfeit the right to de novo review if he fails to file timely objections, if the objections are to strictly legal issues and no factual issues are challenged, or if the objections are general or conclusory and do not relate to a specific error in the report and recommendation. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982).
In his objections to the magistrate judge's report, Hunt addressed eight areas of disagreement with the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge. However, we concur with the district court's determination that only two may be considered objections for review purposes. Of these remaining two objections, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hunt v. Rushton, No. CA-00-3375-3-23 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2001). 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.