UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7567

KENNETH WHITMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. H. MAUNEY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:13-cv-03217-JMC)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Whitmore, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kenneth Whitmore seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and

denying relief on his

(2012) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See

(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,

.

Limiting our review to the issues raised in Whitmore’s

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

and his informal brief, see Wright v. Collins,

,

845–46 (4th Cir. 1985); 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we conclude that

Whitmore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

2 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 before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3