UN PUBLISHED
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 2 4 , 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020

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

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Estes Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Estes Jennings seeks to appe al the district court’s order denying relief on Jennings’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.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 Jenn ings 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

a lso 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 or3 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