Case Name: Samuel Emmanuel STOKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-15
Citations: 668 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 16-6612
Parties: Samuel Emmanuel STOKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
Samuel Emmanuel STOKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent.
No. 16-6612
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 13, 2016
Decided: September 15, 2016
Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, J. FALKNER WILKES LAW OFFICE, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Emmanuel Stokes 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 appealability 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 Stokes 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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED