Case Name: Samuel HARMON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-28
Citations: 671 F. App'x 50
Docket Number: No. 16-6217
Parties: Samuel HARMON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 50–51

Head Matter:
Samuel HARMON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6217
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Decided: November 28, 2016
Joshua Snow Kendrick, Kendrick & Leonard, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelen-ka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Harmon 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 ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 Harmon 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