Case Name: Cassius L. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections for Virginia, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-21
Citations: 603 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 15-6034
Parties: Cassius L. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections for Virginia, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 603
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Cassius L. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections for Virginia, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6034.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2015.
Decided: May 21, 2015.
Darryl Arthur Parker, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Andrew Wit-mer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cassius L. Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as untimely and advised Jones that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). Jones has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.