Case Name: David MEYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden S. K. YOUNG; Director Harold Clarke, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-31
Citations: 694 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 17-6269
Parties: David MEYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden S. K. YOUNG; Director Harold Clarke, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 150–150

Head Matter:
David MEYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden S. K. YOUNG; Director Harold Clarke, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-6269
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2017
Decided: July 31, 2017
David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Meyers 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 Meyers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Meyers' motion for the record on appeal, 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