UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7499
TRACY LAMONT CLARK,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ALVIN KELLER, Secretary of Prisons; SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,
Administrator, MCI,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00542-WO-LPA)
Submitted: January 28, 2014 Decided: February 7, 2014
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Lamont Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracy Lamont Clark 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. 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
also deny Clark’s motion for a transcript. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3