
    Jimmy WAGONER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden BERKERBIL; Terry O’Brien, Respondents-Appellees, and Bureau of Prisons; Slone, Case Manager; Ousley, Case Manager, Respondents.
    No. 12-7287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.
    Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.
    Jimmy Wagoner, Appellant Pro Se. Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Wagoner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 686(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wagoner that failure to file timely and 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. 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). Wagoner has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

AFFIRMED.  