Case Name: Jeremy Tyrone SPELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.W. JONES, Norfolk Police Department, Norfolk City Jail, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 544 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 13-7350
Parties: Jeremy Tyrone SPELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.W. JONES, Norfolk Police Department, Norfolk City Jail, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 236–236

Head Matter:
Jeremy Tyrone SPELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.W. JONES, Norfolk Police Department, Norfolk City Jail, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7350.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2013.
Jeremy Tyrone Spell, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Tyrone Spell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spell 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.