Case Name: Damion L. PRUDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-05
Citations: 30 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: No. 01-7799
Parties: Damion L. PRUDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 192–193

Head Matter:
Damion L. PRUDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-7799.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
Decided March 5, 2002.
Damion L. Pruden, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Damion L. Pruden appeals the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Pruden's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Priden 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, Pruden failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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). Pruden has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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.