Case Name: Jimmy R. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John R. PATE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-04
Citations: 688 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 16-7497
Parties: Jimmy R. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John R. PATE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Jimmy R. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John R. PATE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7497
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2017
Decided: May 4, 2017
Jimmy R. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy R. Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 appealability 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 Taylor 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED