Case Name: Eric ROUNDTREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-04
Citations: 600 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 14-7892
Parties: Eric ROUNDTREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
Eric ROUNDTREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-7892.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2015.
Decided: May 4, 2015.
Eric Roundtree, Appellant, pro se. Elizabeth Catherine Kiernan, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Roundtree 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. 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 thát 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 Roundtree has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Roundtree's motion for 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 be fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.