Case Name: R. James MILLER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nena WALKER-STALEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-24
Citations: 670 F. App'x 88
Docket Number: No. 16-6711
Parties: R. James MILLER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nena WALKER-STALEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 88–89

Head Matter:
R. James MILLER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nena WALKER-STALEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6711
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 11, 2016
Decided: October 24, 2016
Robert James Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabrey, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert James Miller, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 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). Miller has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after being provided proper notice at his address of record. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED