Case Name: Torriano Darnell WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; County of Florence; Warden Dunlap, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-09
Citations: 464 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 11-7110
Parties: Torriano Darnell WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; County of Florence; Warden Dunlap, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Torriano Darnell WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; County of Florence; Warden Dunlap, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-7110.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 30, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 9, 2012.
Torriano Darnell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and W^YNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Torriano Darnell Williams, 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 appeal-able 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 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 Williams 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.