De'Marion Wilson v. Harold Clarke , 627 F. App'x 222 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7053
DE’MARION L. WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Sir, Director, Virginia Dept. of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00358-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
De’Marion Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
De’Marion L. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an
unauthorized, successive petition. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 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
Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
2
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