Case Name: Mack Neil MYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-08
Citations: 54 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 02-7571
Parties: Mack Neil MYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Mack Neil MYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7571.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Jan. 8, 2003.
Mack Neil Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM Opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mack Neil Myers 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 Myers 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, Myers failed to timely 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Myers has waived appellate review by failing to file timely 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 ade quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.