Case Name: Ryan O'Neal DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randall C. MATHENA, Chief Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-06
Citations: 474 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 12-6270
Parties: Ryan O’Neal DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randall C. MATHENA, Chief Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
Ryan O’Neal DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randall C. MATHENA, Chief Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6270.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 6, 2012.
Ryan O’Neal Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan O'Neal Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice based on Davis' failure to provide the required copies of his petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon strating 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 Davis 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 also deny Davis' motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.