Case Name: Alice Wheeler CAIRNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-09
Citations: 86 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 03-7646
Parties: Alice Wheeler CAIRNS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
Alice Wheeler CAIRNS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7646.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 29, 2004.
Decided Feb. 9, 2004.
Alice Wheeler Cairns, Appellant pro se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Alice Wheeler Cairns seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her 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 Cairns 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, Cairns failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely fifing 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). Cairns 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