Case Name: Mark Anthony BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-13
Citations: 571 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 14-6019
Parties: Mark Anthony BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 571
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
Mark Anthony BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6019.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2014.
Decided: May 13, 2014.
Mark Anthony Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Barnes seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice and denying his motion to reconsider. 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 certifícate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnes 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 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.