Case Name: Edward STEEDLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, V.D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-24
Citations: 585 F. App'x 103
Docket Number: No. 14-7098
Parties: Edward STEEDLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, V.D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
Edward STEEDLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, V.D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7098.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2014.
Edward Steedley, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Steedley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Steedley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Steedle/s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.