UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7575
MICHAEL A. BOLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-123-2)
Submitted: January 23, 2001 Decided: February 20, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Boley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, As-
sistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Boley appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).
Boley’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended
that relief be denied and advised Boley 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, Boley failed to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of 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
that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Boley has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We ac-
cordingly deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2