Case Name: Michael A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Micheal A. Dukes, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina, The State of; Joshua L. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General; Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-21
Citations: 670 F. App'x 67
Docket Number: No. 16-6759
Parties: Michael A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Micheal A. Dukes, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina, The State of; Joshua L. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General; Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 67–68

Head Matter:
Michael A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Micheal A. Dukes, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina, The State of; Joshua L. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General; Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 16-6759
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 18, 2016
Decided: October 21, 2016
Michael A. Dukes, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Dukes seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (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 Dukes 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