Case Name: Eric YOUMOUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint; State of North Carolina, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-26
Citations: 348 F. App'x 869
Docket Number: No. 09-7107
Parties: Eric YOUMOUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint; State of North Carolina, Respondents.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 869–870

Head Matter:
Eric YOUMOUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint; State of North Carolina, Respondents.
No. 09-7107.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 26, 2009.
Eric Youmous, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Youmous appeals the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely. 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 granting Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the petition. The magistrate judge further advised Youmous 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, You-mous 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). Youmous has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny You-mous' motion for a certificate of appeala-bility 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.