                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-7120



DAVID CUNNINGHAM, SR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-2547-3-10BC)


Submitted:   November 30, 2000         Decided:     December 11, 2000


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Cunningham, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.  Jeffrey Alan Jacobs,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     David Cunningham, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). Cunningham’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 Cunningham 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, Cunningham 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 also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).   Cunningham 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 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
