UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7256
GENA BEATTY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ANGELA RAWSKI,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:13-
cv-03045-MGL)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gena Beatty, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gena Beatty seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and
denying relief on her 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
Beatty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Beatty’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3