UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-7309

DON RICO MADDOX,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-21, CA-95-1137-3)

Submitted: March 31, 1997

Decided: April 22, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Don Rico Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Farrell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Don Maddox seeks to appeal the district court's order and order on
reconsideration denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Maddox's case was referred to a magis-
trate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magis-
trate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Maddox
that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recom-
mendation. Despite this warning, Maddox failed to object to the mag-
istrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommen-
dation 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 generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985). Maddox has waived appellate review of the district court's
underlying order denying his § 2255 motion by failing to file objec-
tions after receiving proper notice. Moreover, we find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Maddox's motion for
reconsideration, see Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d
716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991), because the motion did not even address
Maddox's failure to timely raise objections, which was the basis for
the district court's denial of relief.

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
