Case Name: Johnnie SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-28
Citations: 568 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 13-7712
Parties: Johnnie SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
Johnnie SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7712.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: April 28, 2014.
Johnnie Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Smith, Jr., 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 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 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 Smith 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.