UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6222


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MAURILIO PRIETO-RUBI,

                Defendant – Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.     Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00017-nkm-1; 3:09-cv-80186-nkm-
mfu)


Submitted:   May 26, 2011                 Decided:   June 1, 2011


Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Maurilio Prieto-Rubi, Appellant Pro Se.   Ronald Mitchell Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Maurilio      Prieto-Rubi             seeks    to    appeal       the    district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2010) motion.              The district court referred this case to a

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

2006    &    Supp.    2010).           The    magistrate       judge       recommended         that

relief be denied and advised Prieto-Rubi that the failure to

file    timely       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.             Wright v. Collins, 

, 845-46 (4th

Cir.    1985);       see    also      Thomas     v.     Arn,       

   (1985).

Prieto-Rubi       has      waived      appellate        review       by    failing       to    file

objections after receiving proper notice.                            Accordingly, we deny

Prieto-Rubi’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




                                                 2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3