Case Name: Willie James SINGLETARY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-23
Citations: 443 F. App'x 869
Docket Number: No. 11-6764
Parties: Willie James SINGLETARY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 869–870

Head Matter:
Willie James SINGLETARY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-6764.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2011.
Willie James Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie James Singletary seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Singletary 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Singletary 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.