Case Name: Mahmoud A. BEN-STONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 389 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 10-6437
Parties: Mahmoud A. BEN-STONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Mahmoud A. BEN-STONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2010.
Mahmoud A. Ben-Stone, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mahmoud A. Ben-Stone seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (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. 478, 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 Ben-Stone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.