Case Name: Melvin E. HAGANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF DURHAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-23
Citations: 430 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 10-7416
Parties: Melvin E. HAGANS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF DURHAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
Melvin E. HAGANS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF DURHAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-7416.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2011.
Decided: May 23, 2011.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., Heather Lynn Rattelade, Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe Del- Forge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Melvin E. Hagans 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 certifícate 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 Hagans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.