Case Name: April STUCKERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-13
Citations: 491 F. App'x 400
Docket Number: No. 12-7098
Parties: April STUCKERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
April STUCKERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7098.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 29, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 13, 2012.
April Stackers, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
April Stackers seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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(e)(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 constitu tional 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 Stackers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny her motions 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.