Case Name: Richard Philip SALANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-22
Citations: 646 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 16-6021
Parties: Richard Philip SALANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Richard Philip SALANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6021.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2016.
Decided: April 22, 2016.
Jeffrey Michael Brandt, Robinson & Brandt, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent'in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Philip Salander 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 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (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 Salander 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.