Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Lamont LEGARDY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-22
Citations: 111 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 04-7115
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Lamont LEGARDY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Lamont LEGARDY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7115.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2004.
Decided Oct. 22, 2004.
Derrick Lamont Legardy, Appellant pro se. John Warren Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Derrick Lamont Legardy seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Legardy 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, Legardy 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 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). Legardy has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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