Case Name: John Thomas LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Karen BROWN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-09
Citations: 700 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 17-6695
Parties: John Thomas LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Karen BROWN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 314–314

Head Matter:
John Thomas LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Karen BROWN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6695
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 31, 2017
Decided: November 9, 2017
John Thomas Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Thomas Lewis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Lewis 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED