Case Name: Roy HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 421 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 10-7456
Parties: Roy HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Roy HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7456.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2011.
Decided: April 5, 2011.
Roy Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roy Hunt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Hunt 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.