Case Name: 1Starr DALTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.VA. PAROLE BOARD; Jim Rubenstein; Joe Manchin, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-30
Citations: 386 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 10-6175
Parties: 1Starr DALTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.VA. PAROLE BOARD; Jim Rubenstein; Joe Manchin, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
1Starr DALTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.VA. PAROLE BOARD; Jim Rubenstein; Joe Manchin, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-6175.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2010.
Decided: June 30, 2010.
IStarr Dalton, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
IStarr Dalton seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Dalton that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. 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). Dalton has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.