Case Name: Kenneth NEWKIRK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 17-6779
Parties: Kenneth NEWKIRK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Kenneth NEWKIRK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6779
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 26, 2017
Decided: November 28, 2017
Kenneth Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court's order' dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to comply with a prior order. 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 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 Newkirk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Newkirk's motion to reconsider the order deferring action on his in forma pauperis application, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, 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