UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM JAMES COPELAND,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
                                                                 No. 95-7976
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-95-1668-0-3BD)

Submitted: August 30, 1996

Decided: September 13, 1996

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William James Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief
on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, seeking relief from his convictions for
attempted armed robbery, assault and battery with intent to kill, and
possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony. We dismiss.

Appellant claimed that he was entitled to habeas relief because his
attorney was ineffective and because his confession was allegedly
coerced in some unexplained manner. Turning to the ineffective assis-
tance of counsel claims, Appellant alleges that his attorney was inef-
fective because: (1) he told Appellant to plead guilty despite
Appellant's assertion that he had no prior knowledge that a crime was
going to occur;1 (2) he forced Appellant to plead guilty by telling him
that if he went to trial he would lose and be sentenced to forty-five
years, but if he pled guilty the prosecution would recommend twenty
years;2 (3) during the plea and sentencing hearing he falsely stated
that Appellant knew that his co-defendant possessed a gun; and (4) he
failed to object to police testimony concerning whether Appellant
accompanied his co-defendant on a trip to obtain a gun prior to the
robbery. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no
reversible error as to claims (1), (2), and (4). Accordingly, we dismiss
those claims on the reasoning of the district court. Copeland v. South
Carolina, No. CA-95-1668-0-3BD (D. S.C. Oct. 30, 1995). Address-
_________________________________________________________________
1 In relation to this claim Appellant also argues that he cannot be guilty
of attempted armed robbery and assault and battery because he did not
personally possess or use a weapon.
2 Related to this claim is the allegation that the attorney was not pre-
pared for trial, thereby ensuring a loss if the case were to proceed.

                    2
ing Appellant's remaining ineffective assistance claim we find that,
even assuming the allegations constitute deficient performance,
Appellant has failed to demonstrate the prejudice necessary to prevail.
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (providing stan-
dard).

Turning finally to Appellant's coerced confession claim, we find
that Appellant failed to mention this claim in his objections to the
magistrate judge's recommendations and report despite warning that
such a failure could result in a waiver of appellate review. The timely
filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is neces-
sary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommen-
dation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will
waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Accordingly, because of Appellant's failure following proper notice
we do not review this claim.

Given the foregoing disposition we deny a certificate of probable
cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal.3 To the extent that a certificate
of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate as well. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
3 We also deny Appellant's motion for general relief.

                    3
