Case Name: Joseph Brian TARLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Herb JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-27
Citations: 600 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 14-7783
Parties: Joseph Brian TARLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Herb JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 153–153

Head Matter:
Joseph Brian TARLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Herb JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7783.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: April 27, 2015.
Joseph Brian Tarleton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Brian Tarleton seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 ap-pealability. See 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) (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 Tarleton has not made the requisite showings Accordingly, we deny Tarleton's motions for confirmation of indigency and "for clarification and correction," deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.