Case Name: Ross E. TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Harold Clarke, or successor (Director Dept. of Corrections); R.C. Mathena, or successor (Warden, Red Onion State Prison), Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-27
Citations: 552 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 13-7406
Parties: Ross E. TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Harold Clarke, or successor (Director Dept. of Corrections); R.C. Mathena, or successor (Warden, Red Onion State Prison), Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 552
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
Ross E. TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Harold Clarke, or successor (Director Dept. of Corrections); R.C. Mathena, or successor (Warden, Red Onion State Prison), Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-7406.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2014.
Ross E. Turner, Appellant pro se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, Office of the Attor ney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ross E. Turner 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 appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. § 2258(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 Turner 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.