UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7590


MARK A. FLETCHER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

MARSHALL R. PIKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00311-TDS-JEP)


Submitted: February 20, 2020                                 Decided: February 25, 2020


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark A. Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Mark A. Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Fletcher that failure

to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 

, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 

, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn, 

, 154-55 (1985). Fletcher has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Fletcher’s motion for a certificate of appealability

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