Case Name: George Lee TOMLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Inst, Respondent-Appellee, and Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-23
Citations: 575 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 14-6589
Parties: George Lee TOMLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Inst, Respondent-Appellee, and Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
George Lee TOMLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Inst, Respondent-Appellee, and Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-6589.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2014.
Decided: June 23, 2014.
George Lee Tomlin, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., South Carolina Department Of Probation, Parole & Pardon Service, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George Lee Tomlin, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 Tomlin 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). Tomlin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. His request for extensions of time do not satisfy this requirement. 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.