Brian Scott v. Marie Vargo ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7587
BRIAN JEROME SCOTT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARIE VARGO, Warden, Sussex II State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-00025-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Jerome Scott, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Jerome Scott, 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. Scott has also filed an application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The district court’s dismissal 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 Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Scott’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a
2
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