Case Name: Henry Lee BRADLEY, a/k/a Henry L. Bradley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-14
Citations: 691 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 16-7387
Parties: Henry Lee BRADLEY, a/k/a Henry L. Bradley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
Henry Lee BRADLEY, a/k/a Henry L. Bradley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7387
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 17, 2017
Decided: June 14, 2017
Henry Lee Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Lee Bradley 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 tod conclude that Bradley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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