                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 01-7139



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LEONARD SHELTON MCCULLOUGH, JR.,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-96-195, CA-00-1040-1)


Submitted:   November 29, 2001            Decided:   December 6, 2001


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leonard Shelton McCullough, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander
Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Leonard Shelton McCullough, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2001).   McCullough’s 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 McCullough 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, McCullough 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.      Wright v.

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

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