Case Name: Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; Theodis Beck, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-05
Citations: 65 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 03-6464
Parties: Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; Theodis Beck, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 65
Pages: 910–910

Head Matter:
Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; Theodis Beck, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6464.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 5, 2003.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams 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 Williams 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, Williams 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Williams has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Williams' leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.