Case Name: Joseph Michael GRIFFITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-22
Citations: 405 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 10-6492
Parties: Joseph Michael GRIFFITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
Joseph Michael GRIFFITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-6492.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.
Joseph Michael Griffith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Michael Griffith, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Griffith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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.