Case Name: Dedric Devon SHERROD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sir Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-24
Citations: 544 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 13-6503
Parties: Dedric Devon SHERROD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sir Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 198–198

Head Matter:
Dedric Devon SHERROD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sir Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6503.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2013.
Dedric Devon Sherrod, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dedric Devon Sherrod 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.2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sherrod 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). Sherrod has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.