Case Name: Brian Hampton WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-31
Citations: 691 F. App'x 101
Docket Number: No. 17-6138
Parties: Brian Hampton WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
Brian Hampton WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6138
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2017
Decided: May 31, 2017
Brian Hampton Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher P. Schandevel, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Hampton Watson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice 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(e)(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 Watson 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