UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7714
DWAYNE R. CLARK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BUSCH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(9:14-cv-02002-TMC)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne R. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne R. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant
Respondent’s summary judgment motion on Clark’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition and he has filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. The district court’s 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
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
2
appealability, 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
3