Case Name: Ernest Dwight PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-07
Citations: 474 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 12-6308
Parties: Ernest Dwight PERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Ernest Dwight PERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 12-6308.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 7, 2012.
Ernest Dwight Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Dwight Perry seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (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, á 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 Perry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.