Filed: March 1, 2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6580 (6:09-cv-00924-SB)

PERRY LEE WATFORD,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed February 28, 2011,

as follows:

On the cover sheet, district court information

section, the case number is corrected to read “6:09-cv-00924-

SB.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6580

PERRY LEE WATFORD,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00924-SB)

Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Perry Lee Watford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Perry Lee Watford seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his

(2006) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1) (2006).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Watford 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

2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3