UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7254

RICHARD KEVIN PATTERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN SCOTT LEWIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:17-cv-02546-DCC)

Submitted: November 27, 2019 Decided: January 16, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Richard Kevin Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

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

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). 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. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–38 (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. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Patterson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss this 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

2