UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6667
CHRISTOPHER G. DARBY, a/k/a Chris Darby,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(2:12-cv-00021-TLW)
Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher G. Darby, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher G. Darby seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as an
unauthorized, successive 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 Darby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
further deny Darby’s motions for the appointment of counsel and
for transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with oral
2
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