Case Name: De'Marion L. WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Sir, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-22
Citations: 627 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 15-7053
Parties: De’Marion L. WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Sir, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 222–222

Head Matter:
De’Marion L. WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Sir, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7053.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2015.
De’Marion Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
De'Marion L. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an unauthorized, successive 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 Wilson 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.