Case Name: David HEATH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-06
Citations: 697 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 16-7652
Parties: David HEATH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
David HEATH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7652
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 30, 2017
Decided: September 6, 2017
David Heath, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Heath seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing Heath's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 Heath has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Heath's motions to place the case in abeyance and to remand, 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