UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7202
TIMOTHY JOSEPH MCKINNEY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
DIRECTOR, SC DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (4:11-cv-01471-RMG)
Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 14, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Joseph McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Joseph McKinney seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (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 McKinney 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3