UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                               No. 96-6670



TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD, a/k/a Vincent Edward
Little,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

WILLIAM E.   GUNN;   RAYMOND    J.   ROSSI;    RHETT
JACKSON,

                                                 Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-95-3596-2-22AJ)

Submitted:   November 21, 1996                Decided:   December 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Norman Lundberg,
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant'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

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 rec-
ommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub-

stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Col-
lins, 

, 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. Accord-

ingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.




                                                          AFFIRMED




                                2