Case Name: Rodney SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Larry CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 16-6518
Parties: Rodney SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Larry CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
Rodney SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Larry CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6518
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 29, 2016
Decided: October 4, 2016
Rodney Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Simmons 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 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 constitution-at 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 reasonáble 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 Simmons 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