
    Anthony Earl WILKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-6942.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 20, 2004.
    Decided: Jan. 19, 2005.
    Anthony Earl Wilkins, Appellant pro se.
    Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Anthony Earl Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wilkins that failure to timely file specific, written objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Wilkins failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Wilkins’ “objection” was entirely general and conclusory. As the district court noted in its order, Wilkins “[did] not state any grounds for his objection.”

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 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). Wilkins has waived appellate review by failing to file objections with any specificity 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  