USCA4 Appeal: 25-6429 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6429

CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE LUMPKIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:25-cv-00147-EKD-CKM)

Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: August 1, 2025

Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6429 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lumpkin has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

* The district court dismissed Lumpkin’s § 2254 petition because it was duplicative of a pending § 2254 petition that Lumpkin had filed. On appeal, Lumpkin does not contest that ruling, so he has forfeited appellate review thereof. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). And in any event, we agree with the district court that Lumpkin’s § 2254 petition was duplicative in that it challenged the same state court judgment and did not present any claim not already raised in the pending § 2254 proceedings.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6429 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED