Case Name: Alonzo A. BALDWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-06
Citations: 421 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 11-6176
Parties: Alonzo A. BALDWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Alonzo A. BALDWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6176.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2011.
Decided: April 6, 2011.
Alonzo A. Baldwin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo A. Baldwin seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. 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 Baldwin that failure to file timely and 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). Baldwin has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 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.