Case Name: Patrick Nicole SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-18
Citations: 71 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 03-6894
Parties: Patrick Nicole SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 259–259

Head Matter:
Patrick Nicole SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6894.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 5, 2003.
Decided Aug. 18, 2003.
Patrick Nicole Scott, Appellant pro se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Patrick Scott, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Scott 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, Scott failed to object to the magistrate judge's 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 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). Scott has waived appellate review by failing to file 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.
.