Case Name: Thomas COVINGTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-06
Citations: 616 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 15-6755
Parties: Thomas COVINGTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 129–129

Head Matter:
Thomas COVINGTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6755.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 17, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2015.
Thomas Covington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant-Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Covington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motions to reconsider in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) action. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Covington 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.