Case Name: Donald Thomas WETHERALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Cecilia REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-17
Citations: 668 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 16-6188
Parties: Donald Thomas WETHERALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Cecilia REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
Donald Thomas WETHERALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Cecilia REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6188
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 2, 2016
Decided: August 17, 2016
Donald Thomas Wetherall, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Thomas Wetherall 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 Wetherall 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