UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7232

SAMUEL LAMONT WHITNER, a/k/a Samuel L. Whitner, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-01392-CMC)

Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 18, 2018

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Lamont Whitner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Samuel Lamont Whitner 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 appealability 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Whitner’s motion to supplement the record. 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