                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6013


WYVONNE RONTEA JONES,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, 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, Chief District Judge. (2:16-cv-00032-RBS-LRL)


Submitted: May 23, 2017                                           Decided: May 26, 2017


Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wyvonne Rontea Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Wyvonne Rontea Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition as untimely. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be

dismissed and advised Jones that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation

could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

       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). Jones has

waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

       We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2
