Case Name: Ronnie Lee CASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-29
Citations: 696 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 17-6477
Parties: Ronnie Lee CASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
Ronnie Lee CASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6477
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 29, 2017
Ronnie Lee Cash, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assis tant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Lee Cash 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 (2012) petition. The order is 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 Cash has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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