Case Name: Glenn PERNELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-22
Citations: 655 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 16-6448
Parties: Glenn PERNELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 655
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
Glenn PERNELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6448
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2016
Decided: July 22, 2016
Glenn Pernell, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Pernell 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 certificate 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 relipf on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive propedural 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 Pernell 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