                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-6023



HAROLD W. FOSTER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


THEODIS   BECK,  Secretary,     North   Carolina
Department of Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-02-208-1)


Submitted:   March 6, 2003                  Decided:   March 17, 2003


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Harold W. Foster, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Harold W. Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).       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 Foster 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, Foster 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 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).        Foster has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we 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
