Case Name: Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecilia REYNOLDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department Of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-25
Citations: 511 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 12-7822
Parties: Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecilia REYNOLDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department Of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, Respondent.
Judges: Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 243–243

Head Matter:
Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecilia REYNOLDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department Of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, Respondent.
No. 12-7822.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2013.
Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Bagley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.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) (2006). 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) (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 Bagley 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.