UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6158
NATHAN LONG,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00026-JPB-JES)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathan Long, Appellant Pro Se. Silas B. Taylor, Laura Young,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan Long seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on Long’s 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
(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 Long has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Long’s 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3