Case Name: Anthony CROWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-05
Citations: 18 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 01-7123
Parties: Anthony CROWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
Anthony CROWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-7123.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2001.
Decided Sept. 5, 2001.
Anthony Crowell, pro se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Crowell seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Crowell's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Crowell that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recom mendation. Despite this warning, Crowell failed to specifically 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). Crowell has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny Crowell's motion for 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.