Case Name: Lauren Moe MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gregory KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-21
Citations: 398 F. App'x 930
Docket Number: No. 10-6466
Parties: Lauren Moe MORRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gregory KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 930–931

Head Matter:
Lauren Moe MORRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gregory KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-6466.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2010.
Lauren Moe Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lauren Moe Morris seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 motion 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 Morris 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.