ROBERTS v. PATTON, 315 Fed.Appx. 484 (4th Cir. 2009)

No. 08-7932.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: February 26, 2009.
Decided: March 6, 2009.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03587-HEF).

Patrick Jermaine Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Page 485

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Jermaine Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court 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 that Roberts 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 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.