Case Name: Johnathan SEYMORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-05
Citations: 448 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 11-6475
Parties: Johnathan SEYMORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 448
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
Johnathan SEYMORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6475.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 5, 2011.
Johnathan Seymore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnathan Seymore 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 appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(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 Seymore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Seymore's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.