Case Name: Christopher Demont OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN McCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-29
Citations: 444 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 11-6313
Parties: Christopher Demont OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN McCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Defendant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
Christopher Demont OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN McCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Defendant.
No. 11-6313.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 29, 2011.
Christopher Demont Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Demont Owens 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 (2006) 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 prison er 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 Owens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Owens' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Owens' motion to appoint counsel. 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.