Case Name: Larry Ray JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Randall C. MATHENA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-02
Citations: 583 F. App'x 57
Docket Number: No. 14-6456
Parties: Larry Ray JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Randall C. MATHENA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 57–58

Head Matter:
Larry Ray JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Randall C. MATHENA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6456.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 28, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 2, 2014.
Larry Ray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Ray Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 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 Johnson 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 máterials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.