Case Name: Douglas DEMPSEY, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Willie EAGLETON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-05
Citations: 523 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 13-6104
Parties: Douglas DEMPSEY, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Willie EAGLETON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 225–225

Head Matter:
Douglas DEMPSEY, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Willie EAGLETON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6104.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2013.
Decided: June 5, 2013.
Douglas Dempsey, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Dempsey, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to treat his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive and unauthorized and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (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 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 Dempsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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.