Case Name: John Douglas ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-17
Citations: 699 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 17-6571
Parties: John Douglas ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 171–171

Head Matter:
John Douglas ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6571
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 17, 2017
John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelen-ka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. .
PER CURIAM:
John Douglas Alexander seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 Alexander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Alexander's motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Alexander's motion for appointment of counsel. 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