Case Name: Gerald Davis FULLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roderick R. SOWERS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-04
Citations: 396 F. App'x 972
Docket Number: No. 10-6141
Parties: Gerald Davis FULLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roderick R. SOWERS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 972–973

Head Matter:
Gerald Davis FULLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roderick R. SOWERS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6141.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 4, 2010.
Gerald Davis Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Carroll Bustos, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Davis Fuller, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 Fuller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fuller's motion for supplemental briefing, 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.