Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin R. ANDERSON, a/k/a Ronnie Anderson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-17
Citations: 100 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 04-6250
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marvin R. ANDERSON, a/k/a Ronnie Anderson, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 220–220

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marvin R. ANDERSON, a/k/a Ronnie Anderson, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6250.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 17, 2004.
Marvin R. Anderson, Appellant pro se. John Lanier File, Office of the United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marvin R. Anderson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The district court referred the 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 Anderson that the failure to file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on the recommendation. Despite this warning, Anderson failed to object in specific terms 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). Anderson has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Anderson's motion for 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