Case Name: Michael A. BOLEY, 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: 2001-02-20
Citations: 3 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 00-7575
Parties: Michael A. BOLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Michael A. BOLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 00-7575.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 2001.
Decided Feb. 20, 2001.
Michael A. Boley, pro se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael A. Boley appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). Boley'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 Boley 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, Boley faded to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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). Boley has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny 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.