                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 98-6771



ROY BENJAMIN SALLEY,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


DR. BLAND, Medical Doctor at Perry Correction-
al Institution,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-97-3071-2-18AJ)


Submitted:   July 30, 1998              Decided:    September 8, 1998


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roy Benjamin Salley, Appellant Pro Se.  Steven Michael Pruitt,
BURNS, MCDONALD, BRADFORD, PATRICK & TINSLEY, Greenwood, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant’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 Ap-

pellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommenda-

tion could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant 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 generally Thomas

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

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss 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
