Case Name: Mary E. KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tammy BROWN, Warden, VCCW, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-27
Citations: 425 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 11-6098
Parties: Mary E. KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tammy BROWN, Warden, VCCW, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
Mary E. KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tammy BROWN, Warden, VCCW, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6098.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2011.
Decided: April 27, 2011.
Mary E. King, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mary E. King seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. By failing to challenge on appeal the basis for the district court's rejection of her claim, we conclude that King has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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