Case Name: Teddie Lee GRANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.H. MAUNEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-13
Citations: 669 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 16-6328
Parties: Teddie Lee GRANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.H. MAUNEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 171–171

Head Matter:
Teddie Lee GRANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.H. MAUNEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6328
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 30, 2016
Decided: October 13, 2016
Teddie Lee Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. .
Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Teddie Lee Grant seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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 ap-pealability 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 Grant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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