Case Name: Keith Bradley GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry Dargan McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-10
Citations: 390 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 09-7291
Parties: Keith Bradley GRAHAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry Dargan McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
Keith Bradley GRAHAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Henry Dargan McMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 09-7291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 10, 2010.
William Isaac Diggs, Diggs, Diggs & Axelrod, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Bradley Graham seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 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 Graham has not made the requisite showing. 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.