Case Name: Solomon ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-16
Citations: 453 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 11-7047
Parties: Solomon ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
Solomon ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 11-7047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 4, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 16, 2011.
Solomon Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Solomon Anderson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) 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) (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 Anderson 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.