Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto PEREZ-FULGENCIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-26
Citations: 188 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 06-6519
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto PEREZ-FULGENCIO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 188
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto PEREZ-FULGENCIO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6519.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 16, 2006.
Decided: June 26, 2006.
Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Perez-Fulgencio that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Perez-Fulgencio 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). Perez-Fulgencio 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.