Case Name: Sean Deron WELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael M. STEVENSON, III, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-26
Citations: 647 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 15-8000
Parties: Sean Deron WELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael M. STEVENSON, III, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
Sean Deron WELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael M. STEVENSON, III, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-8000.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2016.
Decided: April 26, 2016.
Sean Deron Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M, Scrantom, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Deron Wells seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wells 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.