                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 08-7059



BETTY J. CHAMBERLAIN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00276-RAJ-JEB)


Submitted:   September 16, 2008       Decided:   September 24, 2008


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Betty J. Chamberlain, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Betty J. Chamberlain seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 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 Chamberlain 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,   Chamberlain    failed   to   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 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).      Chamberlain has waived appellate review by

failing to timely file specific 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                              DISMISSED


                                   2
