Case Name: Michael A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, etc, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-04
Citations: 684 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 16-7515
Parties: Michael A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, etc, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
Michael A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden, etc, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7515
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 4, 2017
Michael A. Dukes, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Dukes seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as unauthorized and successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 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 Dukes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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