Case Name: Bernard MCFADDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David DUNLAP, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-03
Citations: 675 F. App'x 344
Docket Number: No. 16-7540
Parties: Bernard MCFADDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David DUNLAP, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 344–345

Head Matter:
Bernard MCFADDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David DUNLAP, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7540
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 31, 2017
Decided: February 3, 2017
Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Catoe Bigelow, . Stephen H. Lunsford, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard McFadden, a South Carolina state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The orders are not appealable 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 McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McFadden's 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED