                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-8062



MICHAEL E. HAMM, a/k/a Michael Eugene Hamm,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina; WARDEN,
Ridgeland Correctional Institution,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (0:06-cv-02942-HMH)


Submitted: May 31, 2007                        Decided:   June 5, 2007


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael E. Hamm, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Michael E. Hamm seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.     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 Hamm that

failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation

could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon

the recommendation. Despite this warning, Hamm filed only generic,

non-specific objections in which he simply restated his substantive

claims.

            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 of the consequences of noncompliance.     Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985).     Hamm has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.   We also deny Hamm’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.

            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 -
