                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6426



TIMOTHY A. DEROCHER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
ROBERT   H.  MAUNEY,   Warden  of   Northside
Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:05-cv-01027-RBH)


Submitted: June 22, 2006                        Decided: July 3, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy A. DeRocher, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

          Timothy A. DeRocher seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.   The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).   The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised DeRocher 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, DeRocher failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.*

          The timely filing of specific 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 of the consequences of noncompliance.    Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985).   DeRocher has waived appellate review by failing

to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.




     *
      While DeRocher ultimately filed objections, they were clearly
untimely.

                               - 2 -
          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




                              - 3 -
