Certiorari dismissed, October 3, 2011

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7119

WILLIAM CLAYTON MCKINNEDY, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECILIA R. REYNOLDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-7180

WILLIAM CLAYTON MCKINNEDY, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECILIA R. REYNOLDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cv-01247-HMH)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 26, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Clayton McKinnedy, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

William Clayton McKinnedy, III, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice on his

(2006) petition and the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the

judgment. The orders are 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 McKinnedy has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeals. McKinnedy’s motion for relief from retaliation is

3 denied. 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

4