Case Name: David HARRELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wayne McCABE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-06
Citations: 537 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 13-6426
Parties: David HARRELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wayne McCABE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 537
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
David HARRELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wayne McCABE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 6, 2013.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Harrell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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)(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, a prison er 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 Harrell 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.