Case Name: James HARDIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 415 F. App'x 463
Docket Number: No. 10-7047
Parties: James HARDIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 463–463

Head Matter:
James HARDIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
Decided: March 8, 2011.
James Hardin, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Hardin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and its subsequent order denying his motion to vacate judgment and for leave to file objections. 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 Hardin that failure to file timely, specific 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). Hardin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice and receiving an extension of time to file objections. 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.