                           UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 95-7529



BOBBY SESSIONS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

         versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-95-110-2-20AJ)


Submitted:   January 11, 1996            Decided:   January 24, 1996


Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bobby Sessions, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismiss-

ing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was

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

(1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant 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, Appel-

lant 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dis-

miss 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
