Case Name: Thomas A. CHILTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-07
Citations: 464 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 11-6953
Parties: Thomas A. CHILTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Thomas A. CHILTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6953.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 30, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2012.
Thomas A. Chilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Karen Misbach, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas A. Chilton, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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 Chilton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Chilton's motions to place the case in abeyance, to perpetuate testimony, and for a show cause order. 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.