Case Name: Floyd Dinsdale BOLDING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Earl Barksdale, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-25
Citations: 646 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 15-7874
Parties: Floyd Dinsdale BOLDING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Earl Barksdale, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Floyd Dinsdale BOLDING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Earl Barksdale, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-7874.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 15, 2016.
Decided: April 25, 2016.
Floyd Dinsdale Bolding, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Floyd Dinsdale Bolding seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability.' 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Bolding 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.