Case Name: David VERSER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James STEWARD, III, Commissioner, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; Kimberly Runion, Mrs., Director, Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation Services, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-12
Citations: 474 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 12-6363
Parties: David VERSER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James STEWARD, III, Commissioner, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; Kimberly Runion, Mrs., Director, Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation Services, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
David VERSER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James STEWARD, III, Commissioner, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; Kimberly Runion, Mrs., Director, Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation Services, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 12-6363.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 12, 2012.
David Verser, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Verser 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 appealability. 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(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prison er 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 Verser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.