Case Name: Raymond Charles CREASON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.W. YORK, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-05
Citations: 30 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: No. 01-7830
Parties: Raymond Charles CREASON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.W. YORK, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
Raymond Charles CREASON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.W. YORK, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-7830.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
Decided March 5, 2002.
Raymond Charles Creason, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Charles Creason seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Creason's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Creason 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, Creason failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Creason has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny Creason's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion for 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.