UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7646



ALICE WHEELER CAIRNS,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director      of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-208)


Submitted: January 29, 2004                  Decided:   February 9, 2004


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alice Wheeler Cairns, Appellant Pro Se.      Richard Bain Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Alice Wheeler Cairns seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The   district   court     referred   this    case    to   a   magistrate   judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).               The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Cairns 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, Cairns failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

            The timely filing of specific 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).             Cairns has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we 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 -