Case Name: William WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Attorney General, The Honorable Alan Wilson, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 127
Docket Number: No. 17-6950
Parties: William WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Attorney General, The Honorable Alan Wilson, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 127–128

Head Matter:
William WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Attorney General, The Honorable Alan Wilson, Respondent.
No. 17-6950
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
William Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Washington 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. § 2258(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 Washington 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