Case Name: Edmond Stanley ADAMS, III, a/k/a Edmond Adams, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden EAGLETON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-27
Citations: 590 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 14-7383
Parties: Edmond Stanley ADAMS, III, a/k/a Edmond Adams, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden EAGLETON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit'Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 590
Pages: 286–286

Head Matter:
Edmond Stanley ADAMS, III, a/k/a Edmond Adams, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden EAGLETON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7383.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2015.
Edmond Stanley Adams, III, 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 SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit'Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Prior report: 2014 WL 819443; 2014 WL 4198821.
PER CURIAM:
Edmond Stanley Adams, III, 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 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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. § 2258(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 Adams 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.