Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio Cesar PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-24
Citations: 251 F. App'x 814
Docket Number: No. 07-6767
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julio Cesar PEREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 814–815

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julio Cesar PEREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6767.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2007.
Julio Cesar Perez for Appellant pro se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julio Cesar Perez seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Perez 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, Perez 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). Perez 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 court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.