UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6744

JAMEL ALEXANDRETTE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:12-cv-03304-DCN)

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamel Alexandrette, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jamel Alexandrette seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his

(2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(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 Alexandrette has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Alexandrette’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3