Case Name: Christopher Michael FORNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-08
Citations: 473 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 12-6115
Parties: Christopher Michael FORNEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Christopher Michael FORNEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 12-6115.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2012.
Decided: May 8, 2012.
Christopher Michael Forney, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Michael Forney 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 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (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 Forney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability 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.