Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert Herman BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-07
Citations: 373 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 09-7392
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert Herman BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 343–344

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert Herman BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7392.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2010.
Decided: April 7, 2010.
Wilbert Herman Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wilbert Herman Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Brown that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Brown 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 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). Brown has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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 coui't and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.