Case Name: Curtis L. KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-22
Citations: 459 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 11-6922
Parties: Curtis L. KING, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
Curtis L. KING, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-6922.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2011.
Curtis L. King, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. King seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 King has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny King's motion for a certifícate 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.