Case Name: Dexter WILLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-31
Citations: 54 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 02-7380
Parties: Dexter WILLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Dexter WILLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7380.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Dec. 31, 2002.
Dexter Willis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dexter Willis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 Willis 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, Willis failed to timely 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). Willis has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant in forma pauperis status.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.