Case Name: Curtis Leon TAYLOR, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-21
Citations: 419 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 10-7264
Parties: Curtis Leon TAYLOR, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 323–323

Head Matter:
Curtis Leon TAYLOR, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7264.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 8, 2011.
Decided: March 21, 2011.
Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr. seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge'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 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.
The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).