Case Name: Ronnie Neil PENLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia THORNTON, Administrator, Harnett Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 573 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 14-6311
Parties: Ronnie Neil PENLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia THORNTON, Administrator, Harnett Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 263–263

Head Matter:
Ronnie Neil PENLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia THORNTON, Administrator, Harnett Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6311.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2014.
Decided: May 29, 2014.
Ronnie Neil Penley, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Neil Penley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 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, 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 Penley 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.