Case Name: Carl Wayne FOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-19
Citations: 333 F. App'x 792
Docket Number: No. 09-6623
Parties: Carl Wayne FOY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 792–793

Head Matter:
Carl Wayne FOY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6623.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 19, 2009.
George Lawson Partain, Logan, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Christopher Smith, Charleston, West Virginia, Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Wayne Foy seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Foy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Foy's motion for 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.