                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-6990



THOMAS ANDREW WILLIAMS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-1963-2)


Submitted:   September 21, 2000       Decided:   September 29, 2000


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Andrew Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assis-
tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Thomas Andrew Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

1994 & Supp. 2000).   Williams’ 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 Williams 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, Williams 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).   Williams 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
