UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6490
BILLY ROY BOYD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-6553
BILLY ROY BOYD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BERNARD MCKIE, Warden of Kirkland Correctional Institution,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
ALAN WILSON,
Respondent.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge;
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:11-cv-02981-TLW; 1:12-cv-
00201-TLW)
Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 12, 2013
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Roy Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Billy Roy Boyd, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his motion and his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice. The orders are 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 Boyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral
3
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
4