Case Name: Mary CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY JAIL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 187 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 06-6477
Parties: Mary CARTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY JAIL, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Mary CARTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY JAIL, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6477.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2006.
Decided July 3, 2006.
Mary Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mary Carter seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 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 Carter 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, Carter 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). Carter has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 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