Case Name: Gerald Patrick BARBARIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edsel TAYLOR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-18
Citations: 588 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 14-7350
Parties: Gerald Patrick BARBARIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edsel TAYLOR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
Gerald Patrick BARBARIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edsel TAYLOR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7350.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 3, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2014.
Gerald Patrick Barbaris, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and WYNN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gerald Patrick Barbaris seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive, and denying his motion for reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Barbaris 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.