Case Name: Linnon Eugene MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; George Hagan, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-06
Citations: 223 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 07-6099
Parties: Linnon Eugene MOORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; George Hagan, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 275–275

Head Matter:
Linnon Eugene MOORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; George Hagan, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6099.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2007.
Decided: April 6, 2007.
Linnon Eugene Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Linnon Eugene Moore seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 Moore that 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, Moore failed to file specific objections 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 failing to file specific objections. See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n. 3 (4th Cir.2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). Moore 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.