UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7141
FURMAN THOMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
DIRECTOR JON OZMINT,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(8:10-cv-02103-DCN)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Furman Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Furman Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to
properly 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
(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. In his informal brief, Thompson has failed to address
the district court’s dispositive finding that the claims raised
in his § 2254 petition were not properly exhausted. Therefore,
Thompson has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s
ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s
2
motion for 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
3