Case Name: Mark DAMRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, St. Mary's Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-22
Citations: 398 F. App'x 906
Docket Number: No. 10-7153
Parties: Mark DAMRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, St. Mary’s Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 906–907

Head Matter:
Mark DAMRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, St. Mary’s Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7153.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2010.
Mark Damron, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark Damron 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 debata ble 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 Damron has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Damron's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.