Case Name: John Daniel SPRINGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis BUSH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-05
Citations: 621 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 15-6682
Parties: John Daniel SPRINGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis BUSH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 252–252

Head Matter:
John Daniel SPRINGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis BUSH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6682.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 30, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2015.
John Daniel Springer, Appellant, pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Daniel Springer seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court's order denying Springer's motion for reconsideration. 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 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 Springer 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.