Case Name: James Franklin PIPES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Thomas L. McBride, Warden, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-16
Citations: 396 F. App'x 19
Docket Number: No. 09-6771
Parties: James Franklin PIPES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Thomas L. McBride, Warden, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 19–20

Head Matter:
James Franklin PIPES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Thomas L. McBride, Warden, Respondent.
No. 09-6771.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, 2010.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2010.
James Franklin Pipes, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, Dawn Ellen War-field, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Franklin Pipes seeks to appeal the district court's orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The orders are not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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). 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 Pipes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Pipes's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.