
    Ricky M. WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 01-7895.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 27, 2002.
    Ricky M. Watson, pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Ricky M. Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Watson’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 Watson 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, Watson failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation; instead, he filed a notice of appeal.

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, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Watson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability, deny Watson’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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. 
      
       We have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court subsequently entered a final order. See Equipment Finance Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992).
     