Case Name: Isaiah F. WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-10
Citations: 698 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 16-7516
Parties: Isaiah F. WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
Isaiah F. WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7516
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 28, 2017
Decided: October 10, 2017
Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zel-enka, Deputy Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaiah F. Walker seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 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 demon strating 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 Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 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