Case Name: Charles Napier EL-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-03
Citations: 212 F. App'x 179
Docket Number: No. 06-7312
Parties: Charles Napier EL-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 179–180

Head Matter:
Charles Napier EL-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7312.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 3, 2007.
Charles Napier El-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Napier El-Bey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 El-Bey 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, El-Bey failed to 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 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). El-Bey has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 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.