Case Name: Duval Melvin COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-18
Citations: 685 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 16-6860
Parties: Duval Melvin COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 685
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Duval Melvin COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6860
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2017
Decided: April 18, 2017
Duval Melvin Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Duval Melvin Cooper 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 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 Cooper 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