UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LENNIE JOHN, a/k/a Uncle L,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CR-95-198, CA-97-768)
Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lennie John, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Henry Wright, Monica Kaminski
Schwartz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).
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 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, Appellant 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); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S.
1208 (1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of ap-
pealability 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
2