Case Name: Jeffery Allen NALLY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Evelyn SEIFERT, Respondent-Appellee, and James T. Carey; Larry Roberts; James Davis, Jr.; Judge Fred Fox, II; Scott Swan, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-30
Citations: 520 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 13-6301
Parties: Jeffery Allen NALLY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Evelyn SEIFERT, Respondent-Appellee, and James T. Carey; Larry Roberts; James Davis, Jr.; Judge Fred Fox, II; Scott Swan, Respondents.
Judges: Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 203–203

Head Matter:
Jeffery Allen NALLY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Evelyn SEIFERT, Respondent-Appellee, and James T. Carey; Larry Roberts; James Davis, Jr.; Judge Fred Fox, II; Scott Swan, Respondents.
No. 13-6301.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2013.
Decided: April 30, 2013.
Jeffery Allen Nally, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Silas B. Taylor, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and WYNN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffery Allen Nally, Jr., 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. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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 Nally 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.