Case Name: Stanford Byron TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-25
Citations: 379 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 09-8223
Parties: Stanford Byron TUCKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 379
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
Stanford Byron TUCKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 09-8223.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 20, 2010.
Decided: May 25, 2010.
Stanford Byron Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanford Byron Tucker 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 (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) (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 Tucker 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.