UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7456
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD EMANUEL HANBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-94-185, CA-97-1165-1)
Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Emanuel Hanberry, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Ronald Hanberry appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (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 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 timely
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 timely objections
after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny Appellant’s mo-
tion for 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
2