Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey Allen WILSON, a/k/a Jugs, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-07
Citations: 37 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 02-6445
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey Allen WILSON, a/k/a Jugs, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 37
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey Allen WILSON, a/k/a Jugs, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-6445.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 30, 2002.
Decided June 7, 2002.
Corey Allen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Corey Allen Wilson appeals the district court's judgment denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). Wilson's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wilson that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Wilson failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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). Wilson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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.