Case Name: Ray LOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-10
Citations: 593 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 14-7196
Parties: Ray LOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 224–224

Head Matter:
Ray LOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7196.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 30, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 10, 2015.
Ray Loy, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Young, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray Loy seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Ley's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. See 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 Loy 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.