UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6755
THOMAS COVINGTON, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE KENWORTHY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02044-FL)
Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: October 6, 2015
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Covington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Covington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motions to reconsider in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) action. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d
363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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
Covington 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3