Case Name: Bobby C. JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-26
Citations: 511 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 12-7885
Parties: Bobby C. JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
Bobby C. JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7885.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2013.
Bobby C. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bobby C. Jenkins 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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. 478, 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jenkins' motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.