Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07587/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07587-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Jerome Scott
Appellant
Marie Vargo
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7587 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 

Appeal: 14-7587 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-7587 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3