UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6530
DERRICK Q. MCFADDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MIKE BALL, Superintendent; DIRECTOR
ROBERT C. LEWIS, NCDOC,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02218-FL)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derrick Q. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Q. McFadden seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition
without prejudice because he failed to comply with the court’s
order to pay the required filing fee. 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)
(2006). 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) (2006). 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 McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3