Case Name: Billy Todd WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin William KELLER, Jr., Secretary of N.C. Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-23
Citations: 430 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 10-7476
Parties: Billy Todd WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin William KELLER, Jr., Secretary of N.C. Dept. of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Billy Todd WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin William KELLER, Jr., Secretary of N.C. Dept. of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-7476.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2011.
Decided: May 23, 2011.
Billy Todd Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Billy Todd Watkins seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the dis trict 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 Watkins 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.