Case Name: Marvin W. MILLSAPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendall HARGRAVE, Temporary Acting Administrator, Alexander Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-03
Citations: 583 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 14-7042
Parties: Marvin W. MILLSAPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendall HARGRAVE, Temporary Acting Administrator, Alexander Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
Marvin W. MILLSAPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendall HARGRAVE, Temporary Acting Administrator, Alexander Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7042.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 28, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2014.
Marvin W. Millsaps, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin W. Millsaps seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. See 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 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 Millsaps has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Mill-saps' motions for leave to depose, motion to bring in third-party defendants, and motion for more definite statement. 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.