Case Name: Andris WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Glenn STONE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-28
Citations: 376 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 10-6103
Parties: Andris WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Glenn STONE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
Andris WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Glenn STONE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6103.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 22, 2010.
Decided: April 28, 2010.
Andris Wright, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andris Wright seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recom mendation 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 Wright 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.
To (lie extent that Wright seeks to raise issues here not first presented to the district court, we decline to consider such issues. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).