UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6116
JOHN HENRY CURTIS, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SOLOMON HEJIRIKA; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-00684-JKB)
Submitted: May 7, 2012 Decided: June 4, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Henry Curtis, Jr., Appellant Pro SE. Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Henry Curtis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders
are 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 Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3