                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7050


COREY JAWAN ROBINSON,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:14-cv-04718-JMC)


Submitted: January 30, 2018                                       Decided: February 1, 2018


Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Corey Jawan Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney
General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Corey Jawan Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting in part

the first recommendation of the magistrate judge and accepting the second

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2012) petition. The orders are 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 Robinson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny as moot Robinson’s motion to stay

the appeal pending resolution of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, deny his 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 before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2
