Case Name: Willie FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden STEVENS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-28
Citations: 380 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 10-6418
Parties: Willie FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden STEVENS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
Willie FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden STEVENS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6418.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 20, 2010.
Decided: May 28, 2010.
Willie Frazier, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Frazier seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Frazier has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Frazier'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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.