Case Name: Daniel Eugene SHERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-27
Citations: 475 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 12-6777
Parties: Daniel Eugene SHERMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
Daniel Eugene SHERMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 12-6777.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2012.
Daniel Eugene Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Eugene Sherman 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 Sherman that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The court granted Sherman one extension of time to file objections, but no objections were forthcoming.
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). Sherman has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Further, we find no merit in Sherman's motion asking this court to excuse his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, we deny that motion and a certificate of ap-pealability 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.