UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 01-7711



LORD SHAMEAL ALLAH, a/k/a Lord Shameal Eternal
Allah,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;      CHARLES CONDON,
Attorney General for the      State of South
Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CA-00-2558-9-24RB)


Submitted:   February 14, 2002         Decided:     February 22, 2002


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lord Shameal Allah, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Caro-
lina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Lord Shameal Allah seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 2001). 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 fail-

ure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recom-

mendation. 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.   See Wright v.

Collins, 

, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 

 (1985). Appellant 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