Case Name: Coye Bond TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-26
Citations: 409 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 10-6574
Parties: Coye Bond TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
Coye Bond TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6574.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 26, 2011.
Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Coye Bond Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Taylor's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Taylor's motion to appoint counsel is denied. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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.