Case Name: Steve CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sandy BARNETT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-24
Citations: 327 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 09-6322
Parties: Steve CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sandy BARNETT, RespondentAppellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
Steve CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sandy BARNETT, RespondentAppellee.
No. 09-6322.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 24, 2009.
Steve Chandler, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steve Chandler appeals the district court's order denying 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 Chandler 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, Chandler failed to object 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). Chandler has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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.