UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7545
IGOR KOOB,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Douglas E. Miller, Magistrate
Judge. (2:11-cv-00195-DEM)
Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 28, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Igor Koob, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Igor Koob seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order
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. 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 Koob 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
∗
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 636(c) (2006).
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3