UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6376

ABDUL M. SUDA,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (3:09-cv-01077-MBS)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 30, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdul M. Suda, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Abdul M. Suda 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). 

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Suda that failure to file timely specific 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 (1985). Except 

as to his claims that he was denied due process during his 

sentencing hearing and that he had difficulty understanding and 

communicating during the plea hearing, Suda has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice.

Concerning the two issues to which Suda did file 

objections, the district court’s order accepting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and denying the § 2254 petition is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 
3

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 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. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Suda 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