Case Name: Gregory ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director/VDOC, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-31
Citations: 432 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 10-7551
Parties: Gregory ROBINSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director/VDOC, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
Gregory ROBINSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director/VDOC, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-7551.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2011.
Decided: May 31, 2011.
Gregory Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to exhaust his claims in state court. 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) (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.2931 (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. In his informal brief, Robinson has failed to address the district court's dispositive finding that the claims raised in his § 2254 petition were not properly exhausted. Therefore, Robinson has forfeited appellate review of the district court's ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.