Case Name: James O. SENN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry CARTLEDGE, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-13
Citations: 668 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 16-6479
Parties: James O. SENN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry CARTLEDGE, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 512–512

Head Matter:
James O. SENN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry CARTLEDGE, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6479
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 7, 2016
Decided: September 13, 2016
James 0. Senn, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James 0. Senn 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 certifícate 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 Senn 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