
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norvell Webster CRUMP, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-6272.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 30, 2002.
    Decided June 6, 2002.
    
      Norvell Webster Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Norvell Webster Crump seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). Crump’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended relief be denied and advised Crump 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, Crump failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 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. 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). Crump 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.  