Case Name: Stanford T. ALLEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Thomas L. McBride, Warden, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-08
Citations: 354 F. App'x 827
Docket Number: No. 09-6524
Parties: Stanford T. ALLEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Thomas L. McBride, Warden, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 354
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
Stanford T. ALLEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Thomas L. McBride, Warden, Respondent.
No. 09-6524.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 8, 2009.
Stanford T. Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanford T. Allen, Jr., appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondent 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Allen 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, Allen failed to object specifically 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 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). Allen has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Allen's motion for 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.