Case Name: Quincy Maurice NASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden McCormick C.I., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-18
Citations: 597 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 14-7523
Parties: Quincy Maurice NASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden McCormick C.I., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
Quincy Maurice NASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden McCormick C.I., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7523.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 20, 2015.
Decided: March 18, 2015.
Quincy Maurice Nash, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., As-sistan! Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quincy Maurice Nash seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012).petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Nash has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certiflcate of appealability and dismiss the appeaL We dispense ^ oral argument because the facts and legal con-tentiong are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.