Case Name: Timothy O'DELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin PLUMLEY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-11
Citations: 708 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 17-6975
Parties: Timothy O’DELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin PLUMLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Timothy O’DELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin PLUMLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6975
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: January 11, 2018
Timothy O’Dell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert L. Hogan, Scott E. Johnson, David A. Stackpole, Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy O'Dell seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of 'the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (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 O'Dell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny O'Dell's motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED