Case Name: Quentin ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-04
Citations: 427 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 11-6252
Parties: Quentin ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
Quentin ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 11-6252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2011.
Decided: May 4, 2011.
Quentin Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Quentin Anderson 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 Anderson 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.