
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Lee BRINCEFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6777
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 17, 2016
    Decided: November 22, 2016
    Thomas Brincefield, Appellant Pro Se. John Mcrae Alsup, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lee Brincefield appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part and advised Brincefield that failure to file timely 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). Brincefield has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Wé 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  