                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-6260



CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PATE, Acting Warden of Allendale Correctional
Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-02-84-1)


Submitted:   April 17, 2003                 Decided:   April 24, 2003


Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Christopher A. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

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 Brown 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, Brown 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 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).          Brown 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
