UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6480
NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00804-TSE-TRJ)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nekita Antonio White seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
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) (2012). 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 (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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny White’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3