UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6663
MICHAEL LEE MCLEOD,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-00340-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: October 17, 2014
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Lee McLeod, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lee McLeod seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and 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 (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 McLeod has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny McLeod’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We
deny McLeod’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense
2
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
3