Case Name: Christora Ray CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Dir. D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 598 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 14-7718
Parties: Christora Ray CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Dir. D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 200–200

Head Matter:
Christora Ray CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Dir. D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7718.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2015.
Decided: March 20, 2015.
Christora Ray Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christora Ray Clark seeks to appeal the district court's order finding that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition is successive and dismissing it without prejudice on that basis. 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 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 Clark 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.