Case Name: James Darnell FORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VA. DEPT. OF CORR., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-01
Citations: 600 F. App'x 896
Docket Number: No. 14-7693
Parties: James Darnell FORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VA. DEPT. OF CORR., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
James Darnell FORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VA. DEPT. OF CORR., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7693.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2015.
Decided: May 1, 2015.
James Darnell Ford, pro se. Craig Stal-lard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Darnell Ford 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. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Ford 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.