Case Name: Marco BATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-01
Citations: 368 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 09-7549
Parties: Marco BATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
Marco BATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7549.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 31, 2009.
Decided: March 1, 2010.
Marco Bates, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marco Bates 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 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Bates 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.