UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8017
TIMOTHY FEODOR KEARNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Douglas E. Miller, Magistrate
Judge. (2:12-cv-00240-DEM)
Submitted: April 30, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Feodor Kearney, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty
Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Feodor Kearney 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 Kearney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2
of appealability, 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