Case Name: Kim Tyrone JESSUP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-26
Citations: 392 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 09-8216
Parties: Kim Tyrone JESSUP, Petitioner—Appellant, v. R. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
Kim Tyrone JESSUP, Petitioner—Appellant, v. R. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-8216.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2010.
Kim Tyrone Jessup, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kim Tyrone Jessup 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) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Jessup has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.