                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 08-6745



EARL ELWOOD ALLEN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00196-RBS-TEM)


Submitted:   September 16, 2008        Decided:   September 22, 2008


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Earl Elwood Allen, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Earl Elwood Allen 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 Allen 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,   Allen   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). Allen 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.

           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
