UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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