Case Name: Felipe TRUJILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John PATE, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-21
Citations: 600 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 15-6167
Parties: Felipe TRUJILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John PATE, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 139–139

Head Matter:
Felipe TRUJILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John PATE, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6167.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2015.
Decided: April 21, 2015.
Felipe Trujillo, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felipe Trujillo 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Trujillo 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). Trujillo has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Trujillo's motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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.
To the extent that Trujillo also seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion, we lack jurisdiction to consider that order because he did not file a notice of appeal until after the appeal period expired. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(B)(ii); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).