UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7572
DAVID HARVEY BREWSTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PAUL W. KIRBY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-95-119-5)
Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elgine Heceta McArdle, THE OFFICE OF MUSSER & MCARDLE, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Harvey Brewster seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). Brewster’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 Brewster that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Brewster filed specific objections to the magis-
trate judge’s recommendation. On appeal, however, Brewster seeks
to appeal issues not addressed in his objections.
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 generally
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brewster has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections regarding his claims on ap-
peal. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dis-
miss 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