Case Name: Michael D. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G. HOLLOWAY, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-05
Citations: 585 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 14-6889
Parties: Michael D. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G. HOLLOWAY, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 146–146

Head Matter:
Michael D. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G. HOLLOWAY, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6889.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 28, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2014.
Michael D. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Edwards seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order ' is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Edwards' motion for 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.