UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 98-7005



DONALD HAROLD COWART,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General,

                                               Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-98-587-2-22AJ)


Submitted:   October 8, 1998                 Decided:   October 27, 1998


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donald Harold Cowart, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Donald Harold Cowart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). Cowart’s case was referred to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Cowart 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, Cowart 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. See Wright v.

Collins, 

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

v. Arn, 

 (1985). Cowart has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                2