
    Lee Wesley HOGAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 05-6461.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 29, 2005.
    Decided: Sept. 16, 2005.
    
      Lee Wesley Hogan, Appellant pro se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Robert David Goldberg, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Lee Wesley Hogan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hogan has not made the requisite showing. 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 
      
       We note that as to Claim O, Hogan’s failure to specifically object to the magistrate judge's recommended disposition waives appellate review as to that claim. See, e.g., Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.2005).
     