UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6349
ROBERT JAMES MILLER, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
BRIAN STIRLING, Director South Carolina Department of
Corrections,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00483-RBH)
Submitted: July 28, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert James Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony
Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert James Miller, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
without prejudice. 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
Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Miller’s motion for 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
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4