Case Name: Titus Lamont BATTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden OAKS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-08
Citations: 513 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 12-7812
Parties: Titus Lamont BATTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden OAKS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Titus Lamont BATTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden OAKS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7812.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2013.
Decided: March 8, 2013.
Titus Lamont Batts, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Titus Lamont Batts seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 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 Batts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Batts' motions to appoint counsel, for a certificate of appealability, and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we 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.