Case Name: Herbert BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Kenneth D. McKellar, Warden; Charles 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: 2003-08-22
Citations: 77 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 03-6884
Parties: Herbert BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Kenneth D. McKellar, Warden; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 77
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
Herbert BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Kenneth D. McKellar, Warden; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6884.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.
Decided Aug. 22, 2003.
Herbert Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Herbert Braxton appeals the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 Braxton 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, Braxton 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). Braxton has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Because we have denied a certificate of appealability, we also deny Braxton's motion to extend the time in which to file a final informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 22(a)(1)(B).
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.