
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior LITTLE, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior Little, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior Little, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior Little, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 11-6140, 11-6141, 11-6142, 11-6143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 31, 2011.
    Decided: April 6, 2011.
    Jerone Junior Little, Appellant Pro Se. Michael A. DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerone Junior Little seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion challenging multiple convictions arising from four bank robberies. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Little that the 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). Little has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.

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.  