                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7380



DEXTER WILLIS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District        Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.         James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-02-513-1)


Submitted:   December 19, 2002         Decided:     December 31, 2002


Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dexter Willis, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Dexter      Willis,   a   federal   prisoner,    appeals   the   district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000).        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

Willis    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, Willis

failed to timely object to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review.                 See

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

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).            Willis has waived appellate

review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper

notice.   Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court

and grant in forma pauperis status.

     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.



                                                                      AFFIRMED


                                         2
