Case Name: George KENNEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BROAD RIVER CORRECTION INST., WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-27
Citations: 476 F. App'x 421
Docket Number: No. 12-6849
Parties: George KENNEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BROAD RIVER CORRECTION INST., WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
George KENNEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BROAD RIVER CORRECTION INST., WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6849.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2012.
George Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Kennedy seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute and advised Kennedy that 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, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Kennedy 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.