Case Name: Adarius Quante DENNIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 680 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 16-6430
Parties: Adarius Quante DENNIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 233–233

Head Matter:
Adarius Quante DENNIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6430
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2017
Decided: March 14, 2017
Adarius Quante Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adarius Quante Dennis seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012).
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 motion 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 Dennis 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