Case Name: Michael Lewis MOORE, a/k/a Michael L. Moore, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Director Jon OZMINT, South Carolina Department of Corrections; McKither Bodison, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-24
Citations: 353 F. App'x 832
Docket Number: No. 09-7400
Parties: Michael Lewis MOORE, a/k/a Michael L. Moore, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Director Jon OZMINT, South Carolina Department of Corrections; McKither Bodison, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 832–832

Head Matter:
Michael Lewis MOORE, a/k/a Michael L. Moore, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Director Jon OZMINT, South Carolina Department of Corrections; McKither Bodison, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7400.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 24, 2009.
Michael Lewis Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lewis Moore 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Moore 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 and a thirty-day extension of time in which to file objections, Moore 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). Moore 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.