Case Name: Emmett Ray NALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-27
Citations: 538 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 13-6997
Parties: Emmett Ray NALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
Emmett Ray NALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6997.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2013.
Emmett Ray Nall, Appellant pro se.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emmett Ray Nall, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2013) 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 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 assess ment 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 Nall 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.