
    Willie S. MERRIWEATHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HAGIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-7303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
    Decided: Sept. 16, 2009.
    Willie S. Merriweather, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie S. Merriweather seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Merriweather that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Although Merri-weather filed timely objections, his objections were not specific to the exhaustion issue that formed the basis for the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and later for the district court’s order of dismissal.

The 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). “[A] party ... waives a right to appellate review of particular issues by failing to file timely objections specifically directed to those issues.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir.2007). Therefore, Merriweather has waived appellate review to the dispositive issue by failing to file specific 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.  