Case Name: Matthew Dustin PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Warden Stan Burtt, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 11-7375
Parties: Matthew Dustin PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Warden Stan Burtt, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Matthew Dustin PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Warden Stan Burtt, Respondent.
No. 11-7375.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2012.
Matthew Dustin Perry, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorneys General, Alan Wilson, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Dustin Perry 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 appeal-able 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 debata ble, 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 Perry 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.