Case Name: Michael D. CASTEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CHATHAM OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-26
Citations: 531 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 13-6250
Parties: Michael D. CASTEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CHATHAM OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
Michael D. CASTEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CHATHAM OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6250.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2013.
Decided: June 26, 2013.
Michael D. Castevens, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Castevens seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Castevens 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). Castevens has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.