Case Name: Anthony CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred B. THOMPSON, Interim Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 579 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 14-6507
Parties: Anthony CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred B. THOMPSON, Interim Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
Anthony CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred B. THOMPSON, Interim Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6507.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2014.
Decided: July 29, 2014.
Anthony Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Clark seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting 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 appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Clark's motions for 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.