Case Name: Rafael Escalante PLACENCIA, a/k/a Rafael Mendoza Escalante, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-27
Citations: 591 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 14-7006
Parties: Rafael Escalante PLACENCIA, a/k/a Rafael Mendoza Escalante, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 198–199

Head Matter:
Rafael Escalante PLACENCIA, a/k/a Rafael Mendoza Escalante, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7006.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2015.
Rafael Escalante Placencia, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Escalante Placencia 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. See 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 Placencia 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.