Case Name: Theodore Morris FOUST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, RespondentAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-02
Citations: 594 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 14-7685
Parties: Theodore Morris FOUST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Theodore Morris FOUST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7685.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2015.
Decided: March 2, 2015.
Theodore Morris Foust, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Morris Foust seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of thé 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 Foust has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Foust's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny him 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.