                               UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6192



KEVIN DEVON HOGUE,

                                              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
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-02-113-2)


Submitted:    April 17, 2003                 Decided:   April 23, 2003


Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin Devon Hogue, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Kevin Devon Hogue seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).           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 Hogue 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, Hogue failed to object to the portion of the magistrate

judge’s report recommending dismissal of Hogue’s claims on the

merits.

     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 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).           Hogue has waived appellate

review    by   failing   to   object     to    the   magistrate    judge’s

recommendation to dismiss his petition on the merits. 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
