Case Name: Larry Edward HENDRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-23
Citations: 506 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 12-7933
Parties: Larry Edward HENDRICKS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 506
Pages: 202–202

Head Matter:
Larry Edward HENDRICKS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7933.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2013.
Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his" 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate 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 Hendricks 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.