Case Name: Curtis J. HARDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer SAAD, Respondent-Appellee, and Charles Williams, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-19
Citations: 699 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 17-6327
Parties: Curtis J. HARDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer SAAD, Respondent-Appellee, and Charles Williams, Respondent.
Judges: Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Curtis J. HARDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer SAAD, Respondent-Appellee, and Charles Williams, Respondent.
No. 17-6327
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 19, 2017
Curtis J. Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CÚRIAM:
Curtis J. Hardy, a federal inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). Wfiien the district court denies pelief 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 motion 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 Hardy 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