Case Name: Dale EPPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 543 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 13-7069
Parties: Dale EPPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
Dale EPPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7069.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
Dale S. Epps, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dale Epps seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Epps' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as an unauthorized, successive petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Epps has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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.