Case Name: Charles Vest WILLIAMSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-20
Citations: 459 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 11-7117
Parties: Charles Vest WILLIAMSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Charles Vest WILLIAMSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-7117.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2011.
Charles Vest Williamson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Vest Williamson seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders are not ap- pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. § 2258(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 Williamson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williamson's motion for 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.