                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6310



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MICHAEL EDWARD WOODS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00174-WLO; 1:06-cv-00305-WLO)


Submitted:   May 31, 2007                   Decided:   June 8, 2007


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Edward Woods, Appellant Pro Se.     Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Michael Edward Woods seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.    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 Woods that the failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Woods 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).   Woods 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 -
