Case Name: Thomas COVINGTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-24
Citations: 430 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 11-6350
Parties: Thomas COVINGTON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
Thomas COVINGTON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-6350.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2011.
Decided: May 24, 2011.
Thomas Covington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Covington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap pealability. See 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). 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 Covington 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.