Court Opinion

ID: 625431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-03-15 18:51:54+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:11.358549
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-7317

ERIN DEAN PROCTOR,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00202-JLK)

Submitted:   February 28, 2012             Decided:   March 15, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erin Dean Proctor, Appellant Pro Se.      Josephine Frances Whalen,
Esq., Assistant Attorney General,         Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Erin Dean Proctor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing        his   28     U.S.C.   § 2254     (2006)    petition.       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

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Proctor 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

                                             2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3