Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --