UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-7383



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOHN HENRY MCFADDEN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    C. Weston Houck, Chief District
Judge. (CR-90-430, CA-92-1960-3-2-BC)


Submitted:   February 7, 1996          Decided:     February 22, 1996


Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Henry McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismiss-

ing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) petition. 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
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appel-

lant 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. We

accordingly 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 deci-

sional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                 2