Case Name: Rudolph THORNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-14
Citations: 416 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 10-7369
Parties: Rudolph THORNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Rudolph THORNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7369.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 8, 2011.
Decided: March 14, 2011.
Rudolph Thorne, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rudolph Thorne 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2006); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate 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 Thorne 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.