Case Name: Kevin Wayne McDANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-02
Citations: 479 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 12-7050
Parties: Kevin Wayne McDANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondent—Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
Kevin Wayne McDANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondent—Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 12-7050.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 2, 2012.
Kevin Wayne McDaniels, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Wayne McDaniels 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate of ap-pealability 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 McDaniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McDaniels' motion for 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.