Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gebront Mazaunti GADDY, a/k/a T, a/k/a JB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-31
Citations: 473 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 12-6219
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gebront Mazaunti GADDY, a/k/a T, a/k/a JB, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gebront Mazaunti GADDY, a/k/a T, a/k/a JB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-6219.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2012.
Decided: May 31, 2012.
Gebront Mazaunti Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gebront Mazaunti Gaddy seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gaddy that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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, 845M6 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Gaddy has waived appellate review by failing to file 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.
We have reviewed the supplemental authorities Gaddy filed and conclude that they do not alter the disposition of this appeal.