Case Name: Shawntay Lamont EVANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-26
Citations: 19 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 01-6690
Parties: Shawntay Lamont EVANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 19
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Shawntay Lamont EVANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-6690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 20, 2001.
Decided Sept. 26, 2001.
Shawntay Lamont Evans, pro se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Shawntay Lamont Evans seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Evans's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Evans 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, Evans failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Evans has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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.