Case Name: Ozelia HICKS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David S. CLEMENTS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-19
Citations: 699 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 17-6731
Parties: Ozelia HICKS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David S. CLEMENTS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
Ozelia HICKS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David S. CLEMENTS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6731
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 19, 2017
Ozelia Hicks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William G. Shields, WILLIAM G. SHIELDS & ASSOCIATES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ozelia Hicks, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Hicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to-proceed in forma pauper-is, deny a 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