Case Name: Bobby Eugene RODDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee, and David Ballard, Warden, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-02
Citations: 442 F. App'x 22
Docket Number: No. 11-6437
Parties: Bobby Eugene RODDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee, and David Ballard, Warden, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 22–22

Head Matter:
Bobby Eugene RODDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee, and David Ballard, Warden, Respondent.
No. 11-6437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.
Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Eugene Roddy, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) 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) (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. 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 Roddy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Roddy's motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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.