Case Name: Kane Anthony FOSNAUGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-26
Citations: 690 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 17-6256
Parties: Kane Anthony FOSNAUGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
Kane Anthony FOSNAUGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6256
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Kane Anthony Fosnaught, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kane Anthony Fosnaught seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying reconsideration. 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 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 Fosnaught has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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