UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7454
MICHAEL P. GRAFMULLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate
Judge. (2:12-cv-00052-TEM)
Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: February 8, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael P. Grafmuller, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael P. Grafmuller 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. 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
magistrate judge 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 magistrate judge 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 Grafmuller has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2
to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3