UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7098

EDWARD STEEDLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, V.D.O.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00485-GBL-JFA)

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Steedley, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Edward Steedley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his

(2012) petition and

he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Steedley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny Steedley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

deny a certificate of appealability, 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