Case Name: Charles Allan KIMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee. Charles Allan Kimmer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest Sutton, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-12
Citations: 22 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: Nos. 01-6035, 01-7116
Parties: Charles Allan KIMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee. Charles Allan Kimmer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest Sutton, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Charles Allan KIMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee. Charles Allan Kimmer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest Sutton, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 01-6035, 01-7116.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 20, 2001.
Decided Dec. 12, 2001.
Charles Allan Kimmer, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Allan Kimmer seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Kimmer'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 Kimmer 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, Kimmer 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, 845-6 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Kimmer has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. In addition, Kimmer's challenges to the magistrate judge's pre-judgment orders of December 14, 2000, and February 9, 2001, are without merit. We accordingly 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.