Case Name: Reginald Bryan SPELLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-23
Citations: 692 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 17-6255
Parties: Reginald Bryan SPELLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
Reginald Bryan SPELLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6255
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2017
Decided: June 23, 2017
Reginald Bryan Spellman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Bryan Spellman 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 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 Spellman 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