Case Name: Gary VANNATTER, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael MCCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute, 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 281
Docket Number: No. 11-6576
Parties: Gary VANNATTER, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael MCCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
Gary VANNATTER, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael MCCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-6576.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2011.
Gary Vannatter, Sr., 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gary Vannatter, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Vannatter's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as an unauthorized, successive petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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 Vannatter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.