UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 01-6201



NICK A. HOWIE,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DERRICK WADSWORTH, Superintendent, Hyde Cor-
rectional Institution,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-00-607-1)


Submitted:   April 17, 2001                 Decided:    May 11, 2001


Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Nick A. Howie, Appellant Pro Se.    Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Nick A. Howie appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).            Howie’s

case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994).      The magistrate judge recommended that re-

lief be denied and advised Howie that the failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning,   Howie   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 also Thomas v.

Arn, 

 (1985).         Howie 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