Case Name: Bobby Clifton SETZER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-22
Citations: 670 F. App'x 827
Docket Number: No. 16-7035
Parties: Bobby Clifton SETZER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
Bobby Clifton SETZER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7035
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Decided: November 22, 2016
Bobby Clifton Setzer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,' III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Clifton Setzer, Jr., 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 relief be denied and advised Setzer that failure to file timely bbjections 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). Setzer has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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