                                  UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                     No. 17-7379


BERNARD BAGLEY,

                   Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DAVID DUNLAP, Warden,

                   Respondent - Appellee,

             and

SC PAROLE BOARD; SC DEPT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON
SERVICES,

                   Respondents.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (5:16-cv-03924-TLW)


Submitted: February 22, 2018                            Decided: February 27, 2018


Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       Bernard Bagley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(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 Bagley has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny 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




                                             3
