Case Name: Elijah MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-28
Citations: 468 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 11-7741
Parties: Elijah MARSHALL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Elijah MARSHALL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden CARTLEDGE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-7741.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2012.
Elijah Marshall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elijah Marshall, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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 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 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 Marshall has not made the requisite show ing. 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.