Case Name: Marlon BLANDIN, Petitioner- Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-12
Citations: 142 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 05-6856
Parties: Marlon BLANDIN, Petitioner— Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 777–777

Head Matter:
Marlon BLANDIN, Petitioner— Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 05-6856.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 17, 2005.
Decided Sept. 12, 2005.
Marlon Blandin, Appellant pro se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Marlon Blandin seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 Blandin that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Blandin 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 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Blandin 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