UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7290
WALTER Z. SPELLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00781-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Z. Speller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Speller seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
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 petition be dismissed as successive
and advised Speller that the failure to file timely and specific
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Speller did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the
§ 2254 petition.
The district court’s order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
2
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
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. Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16
(4th Cir. 2005); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201
(4th Cir. 1997); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985). Speller has waived appellate review of the
district court’s order by failing to object after receiving
proper notice to the magistrate judge’s recommendation
concerning all claims other than his claim alleging that the
indictment was procured through false testimony.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3