Case Name: Walter Douglas WHITFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-12
Citations: 449 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 11-6805
Parties: Walter Douglas WHITFIELD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
Walter Douglas WHITFIELD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-6805.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 12, 2011.
Walter Douglas Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Douglas Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir.2004). A certifícate of appeal-ability 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 Whitfield 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.