              Rehearing granted, September 12, 2007



                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6234




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JOHN SAMUEL LEIGH,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-WCB; 3:04-cv-00022-WCB)


Submitted: September 28, 2006              Decided: October 5, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Samuel Leigh, Appellant Pro Se.      Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          John Samuel Leigh 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 Leigh 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, Leigh 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).   Leigh 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 -
