UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-6366


TORREY WASHINGTON,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00241-RAJ-LRL)


Submitted: July 23, 2020                                          Decided: July 28, 2020


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Torrey Lavell Washington, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Torrey Lavell Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Washington’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be

denied and advised Washington that failure to file timely, specific objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 

, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 

, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn, 

, 154-55 (1985). Washington has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after

receiving proper notice.

       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2