UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7505

ESTES JENNINGS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BERNARD BOOKER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00553-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Estes Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Estes Jennings seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on Jennings’ 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be 

denied and advised Jennings 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Jennings received proper 

notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review of his claims, except the claims the magistrate judge found were 

procedurally defaulted, because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding 

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to 

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to 

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). 

Regarding the procedurally defaulted claims to which Jennings specifically 

objected, Jennings may not appeal from that portion of the order unless a circuit justice or 
3

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Jennings has not made the requisite showing. 

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