Case Name: Michael Scott HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-29
Citations: 653 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 16-6404
Parties: Michael Scott HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
Michael Scott HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6404
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2016
Decided: June 29, 2016
Michael Scott Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Elizabeth Catherine Kiernan, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Scott Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 appealability 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 Hill 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