Case Name: Sherman GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-22
Citations: 602 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 15-6256
Parties: Sherman GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 602
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
Sherman GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6256.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2015.
Decided: May 22, 2015.
Sherman Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sherman Graham 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. § 686(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised' Graham 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). Graham has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.