Case Name: Don Cornelius NEWBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee, and Unknown, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-23
Citations: 534 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 13-6419
Parties: Don Cornelius NEWBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee, and Unknown, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
Don Cornelius NEWBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee, and Unknown, Respondent.
No. 13-6419.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2013.
Decided: July 23, 2013.
Don Cornelius Newby, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don Cornelius Newby 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 ap-pealability. 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.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 Newby 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.