Case Name: Jerry Lee HENDRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-29
Citations: 521 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 13-6306
Parties: Jerry Lee HENDRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
Jerry Lee HENDRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6306.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2013.
Decided: May 29, 2013.
Jerry Lee Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Lee Hendricks 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 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 Hendricks 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.