UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7582
JAMES ROSEBORO, a/k/a James Edward Roseboro,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-03160-BHH)
Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Roseboro, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Roseboro 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
Roseboro has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3