                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7123



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TIMOTHY W. DODD,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00207-ALL; 2:05-cv-00634)


Submitted: October 31, 2006                 Decided:   November 7, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy W. Dodd, Appellant Pro Se.     Charles T. Miller, Acting
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Timothy W. Dodd 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 Dodd 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, Dodd 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).   Dodd 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 -
