Dennis Alexander Player v. Alvin Keller

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6530
DENNIS ALEXANDER PLAYER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ALVIN KELLER,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:10-cv-00282-LPA)
Submitted: September 16, 2011 Decided: September 29, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Alexander Player, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Alexander Player 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 Player has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny the motion
for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

-- 2 of 3 --

3
with oral 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 of 3 --