Case Name: Billy Shane TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Leroy Cartl, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-28
Citations: 678 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 16-7419
Parties: Billy Shane TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Leroy Cartl, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 129–129

Head Matter:
Billy Shane TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Leroy Cartl, Respondent.
No. 16-7419
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 23, 2017
Decided: February 28, 2017
Billy Shane Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Shane Tucker seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Tucker's 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)(A) (2012). 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) (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 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 Tucker 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