Case Name: Walter PORTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DPSCS; Commissioner of MD Correction; Warden Casey Cambell; Commitment Dept. Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-22
Citations: 707 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 17-7462
Parties: Walter PORTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DPSCS; Commissioner of MD Correction; Warden Casey Cambell; Commitment Dept. Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 149–150

Head Matter:
Walter PORTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DPSCS; Commissioner of MD Correction; Warden Casey Cambell; Commitment Dept. Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-7462
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: December 22, 2017
Walter Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Porter, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 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 Porter 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