Case Name: Randy COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-06
Citations: 474 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 12-6391
Parties: Randy COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
Randy COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6391.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 6, 2012.
Randy Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Silas B. Taylor, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Cooper seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive and untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.