Case Name: William Roscoe SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-26
Citations: 474 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 12-6385
Parties: William Roscoe SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
William Roscoe SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-6385.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2012.
Decided: June 26, 2012.
William Roscoe Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Roscoe Smith 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. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Smith's motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis, deny a certificate of appeala-bility, 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.