Case Name: Paul SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Warden BRCI, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-11
Citations: 410 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 10-6837
Parties: Paul SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Warden BRCI, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 410
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
Paul SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, Warden BRCI, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-6837.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 20, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 11, 2011.
Paul Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Smith seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.