Case Name: Christopher SPENCER, a/k/a Christopher L. Spencer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-14
Citations: 387 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 09-7928
Parties: Christopher SPENCER, a/k/a Christopher L. Spencer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
Christopher SPENCER, a/k/a Christopher L. Spencer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7928.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2010.
Decided: July 14, 2010.
Christopher Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Spencer seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for enlargement of time to file objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge following the district court's order accepting the recommendation and denying relief on 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Spencer 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.