UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6346



RAYMONT TASCO,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


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. (CA-02-339-02)


Submitted:    May 15, 2003                        Decided:   May 27, 2003


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymont Tasco, Appellant Pro Se.     Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Raymont Tasco seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 Tasco 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,   Tasco   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 that failure to object will waive appellate review.              See

Wright v. Collins, 

, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 

 (1985).          Tasco has waived appellate

review by failing to file 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