Case Name: Sylvester WILDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-18
Citations: 454 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 11-6997
Parties: Sylvester WILDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 454
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
Sylvester WILDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
No. 11-6997.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 18, 2011.
Sylvester Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Wilder seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wilder 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). Wilder 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.