PEARSON v. HATHAWAY, 271 Fed.Appx. 364 (4th Cir. 2008)

No. 07-7777.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: March 28, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00576-WWD).

Omar Demitrious Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Omar Demitrious Pearson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders and judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration.[*] The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

Page 365

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the magistrate judge is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Pearson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.