Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Norvell BARR, a/k/a B-Mac, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-21
Citations: 435 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 11-6491
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Norvell BARR, a/k/a B-Mac, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Norvell BARR, a/k/a B-Mac, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6491.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 16, 2011.
Decided: June 21, 2011.
Bernard Norvell Barr, Appellant pro se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Norvell Barr seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Barr 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Barr has waived appellate review of one claim, that counsel was ineffective for failing to note an appeal, by failing to timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after receiving proper notice of the need to do so. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).