                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 00-6666



RUDOLPH THORNE,

                                            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. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-99-1162-2)


Submitted:   July 27, 2000                 Decided:   August 7, 2000


Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rudolph Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Rudolph Thorne seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis-

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

Supp. 2000).    Thorne’s case was referred to a magistrate judge

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

recommended that relief be denied and advised Thorne that failure

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive ap-

pellate review of a district court order based upon the recom-

mendation.    Despite this warning, Thorne 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).    Thorne has waived appellate review by

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

cordingly 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
