                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-7914



JOHN THOMAS POLLARD,

                                           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. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-94-829-2)


Submitted:   February 7, 1996          Decided:     February 28, 1996


Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Thomas Pollard, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismiss-

ing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant 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, Appel-

lant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

     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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dis-

miss 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
