                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-6272



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


NORVELL WEBSTER CRUMP,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-101, CA-99-491)


Submitted:   May 30, 2002                   Decided:    June 6, 2002


Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Norvell Webster Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Norvell Webster Crump seeks to appeal the district court’s

judgment order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2001). Crump’s case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994).     The magistrate judge

recommended relief be denied and advised Crump 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, Crump failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.    The district court adopted the magistrate

judge’s findings and 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.         Wright v.

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

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