Case Name: Demetrius Jarod SMALLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-17
Citations: 597 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 14-7620
Parties: Demetrius Jarod SMALLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
Demetrius Jarod SMALLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph McFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7620.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2015.
Decided: March 17, 2015.
Demetrius Jarod Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Jarod Smalls seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 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 Smalls has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Smalls' motions for a hearing in district court, to be relieved from order of judgment, and to dismiss the district court judgment, 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.