                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 99-6457



ANTONIO DOUGLAS WINSLOW,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CA-98-905-2)


Submitted:   June 17, 1999                 Decided:   June 23, 1999


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio Douglas Winslow, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, As-
sistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Antonio Winslow appeals the district court’s order denying his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp. 1999) petition.   Winslow’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 Winslow 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, Winslow

failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s

findings.

     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).   Winslow has waived appellate

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed on appeal in

forma pauperis, but 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
