Case Name: Anquan M. COBB, a/k/a Anquan Montrez Cobb, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-02
Citations: 441 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 11-6359
Parties: Anquan M. COBB, a/k/a Anquan Montrez Cobb, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 968–968

Head Matter:
Anquan M. COBB, a/k/a Anquan Montrez Cobb, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6359.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.
Anquan M. Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anquan M. Cobb seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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 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 Cobb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.