UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 96-6638



JAMES BYRD MILLER,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          and

WARREN H. COX,

                                                         Plaintiff,

          versus

JAMES B. HUNT, Governor; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN,
JR.; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,
INCORPORATED; MARVIN SPARROW; MARTIN SUPERIN-
TENDENT OF CUSTODY MCDADE,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
Judge. (CA-94-289-5-F)


Submitted:   August 22, 1996          Decided:   September 10, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Byrd Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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




                               2
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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 recommen-
dation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant 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, 

, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 

 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.




                                                          AFFIRMED




                                 3