Case Name: Willie COUVINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-29
Citations: 569 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 14-6129
Parties: Willie COUVINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
Willie COUVINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6129.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: April 29, 2014.
Willie Couvington, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Willie Couvington seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice as seeking relief unavailable through a federal habeas corpus petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Couvington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.