Case Name: Marcus Randall BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis DANIELS, Administrator, Maury Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-24
Citations: 585 F. App'x 82
Docket Number: No. 14-6840
Parties: Marcus Randall BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis DANIELS, Administrator, Maury Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 82–83

Head Matter:
Marcus Randall BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis DANIELS, Administrator, Maury Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6840.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2014.
Marcus Randall Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Randall Brown seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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). 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 Brown 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.