Case Name: Kenneth Frank CREAMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-31
Citations: 473 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 12-6254
Parties: Kenneth Frank CREAMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 285–285

Head Matter:
Kenneth Frank CREAMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6254.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2012.
Decided: May 31, 2012.
Kenneth Frank Creamer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Frank Creamer 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 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 Creamer 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.