**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6376**

ABDUL M. SUDA , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden , Respondent

– Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 3: 0 9

- c v - 01 077

- MB S )

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

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, a nd DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion

.

Abdul M. Sud a , 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ab d ul M. Suda seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.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 o bjections 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. 19 85); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Except as to his claim s 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 no t appealable unless a ci rcuit justice or judge issues a3 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 d istrict 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. W e 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