The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7687
ANDREW BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MACK JARVIS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-97-867-5-F)
Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: September 13, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis-
missing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). Brown’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Brown that failure to
file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Brown 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 generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Brown has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We grant the motion to supplement the record and 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