UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (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. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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, 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 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