Case Name: James J. BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-27
Citations: 687 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 16-7551
Parties: James J. BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
James J. BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7551
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2017
Decided: April 27, 2017
James J. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James J. Brooks seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 certifí-cate 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 Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brooks' motion for a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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