UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 02-6377



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BOOKER COUNCIL THOMAS GATTIS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.    James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-99-102, CA-00-1135-1)


Submitted:   July 25, 2002                 Decided:   July 31, 2002


Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Booker Council Thomas Gattis, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett
Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Booker Council Thomas Gattis seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 2002). Gattis’ 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 Gattis 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, Gattis 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).   Gattis 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