                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7412



RYAN O. DAVIS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-98-1044-2)


Submitted:   January 13, 2000             Decided:   January 20, 2000


Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ryan O. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Ryan O. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis-

missing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999).    Davis’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pur-

suant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994).       The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis 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, Davis 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.    See Wright v.

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

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).      Davis has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.     We ac-

cordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap-

peal.     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
