Case Name: David Eugene GREGG, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NFN McCALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-01
Citations: 386 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 10-6523
Parties: David Eugene GREGG, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NFN McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
David Eugene GREGG, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NFN McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6523.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2010.
Decided: July 1, 2010.
David Eugene Gregg, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Eugene Gregg, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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 Gregg 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). Gregg has waived appellate review by fail ing to file timely 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.