Case Name: Dartagnan Shalil SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 623 F. App'x 90
Docket Number: No. 15-7361
Parties: Dartagnan Shalil SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
Dartagnan Shalil SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARK, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7361.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 24, 2015.
Dartagnan Shalil Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dartagnan Shalil Simmons seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 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 Simmons 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.