Case Name: Charles Edward GARY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director Department of Corrections of Virginia, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 17-6882
Parties: Charles Edward GARY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director Department of Corrections of Virginia, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 110–110

Head Matter:
Charles Edward GARY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director Department of Corrections of Virginia, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6882
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
Charles Edward Gary, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Gary seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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 Gary 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