Case Name: Jose Antonio ANZALDO, a/k/a Jose A. Anzaldo, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecelia REYNOLDS, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-25
Citations: 633 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 15-7489
Parties: Jose Antonio ANZALDO, a/k/a Jose A. Anzaldo, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecelia REYNOLDS, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio ANZALDO, a/k/a Jose A. Anzaldo, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecelia REYNOLDS, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7489.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2016.
Jose Antonio Anzaldo, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Antonio Anzaldo 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 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Anzaldo 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.