Case Name: Mack Neil MYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Lieber Correctional Institution, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-07
Citations: 204 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: No. 06-7138
Parties: Mack Neil MYERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Lieber Correctional Institution, Warden, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
Mack Neil MYERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Lieber Correctional Institution, Warden, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-7138.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.
Mack Neil Myers, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mack Neil Myers seeks to appeal the district court's order denying rehef on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Myers that the failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Myers failed to specifically object to the dispositive portion of 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). Myers has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 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.