Case Name: Marshall Ray MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wayne MCCABE, Warden of Lieber, Respondent-Appellee, and United States Attorney General; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-21
Citations: 475 F. App'x 921
Docket Number: No. 12-6447
Parties: Marshall Ray MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Wayne MCCABE, Warden of Lieber, Respondent—Appellee, and United States Attorney General; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 921–922

Head Matter:
Marshall Ray MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Wayne MCCABE, Warden of Lieber, Respondent—Appellee, and United States Attorney General; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents.
No. 12-6447.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 21, 2012.
Marshall Ray Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Ray Miller, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.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) (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 Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.