UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6429
HERBERT HIGHTOWER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-97-490-5-23JI)
Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herbert Hightower, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). Appellant'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 Appellant that fail-
ure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the recom-
mendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to file timely
objections in the district court. Thus, the district court, after
reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopted
the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the
case. Appellant appeals. The filing of timely objections to a mag-
istrate judge's report and recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of the substance of the report. See United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Because Appellant
failed to filed objections after receiving notification of the need
to file such objections, he waived his right to appellate review.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. Hightower v. Moore, No. CA-97-490-5-23JI (D.S.C. Mar. 3,
1998). 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
2