Case Name: Dana December SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee, George Castelle, Interested Party-Party in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-08
Citations: 422 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 10-7464
Parties: Dana December SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee, George Castelle, Interested Party-Party in Interest.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
Dana December SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee, George Castelle, Interested Party-Party in Interest.
No. 10-7464.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 4, 2011.
Decided: April 8, 2011.
Dana December Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dana December Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Smith's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.