                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-6835



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DOUGLAS CLEMMONS SILER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Richard C. Erwin, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-96-106, CA-99-37-1)


Submitted:   October 21, 1999             Decided:   October 27, 1999


Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Douglas Clemmons Siler, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Douglas Clemmons Siler seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 1999).   Siler’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 Siler 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, Siler 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).    Siler 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
