
    Walter Z. SPELLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-7290
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 22, 2016
    Decided: November 28, 2016
    Walter Z. Speller, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L,Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

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 for-ma 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  