Case Name: Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, RespondentAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-02
Citations: 594 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 14-7617
Parties: Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7617.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2015.
Decided: March 2, 2015.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court's dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1)(B) (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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Elliott's motion for a certificate 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.