UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6953
THOMAS A. CHILTON, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
PAGE TRUE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00490-JR-MHL)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012
Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas A. Chilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Karen Misbach, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas A. Chilton, Jr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and 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 appealability. 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 Chilton has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny Chilton’s motions to place the case in
abeyance, to perpetuate testimony, and for a show cause order.
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