Case Name: Jerome Will JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-27
Citations: 380 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 10-6186
Parties: Jerome Will JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
Jerome Will JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-6186.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 20, 2010.
Decided: May 27, 2010.
Jerome Will James, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Will James seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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. 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 James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.