Case Name: Rodolfo Aveleano SALINAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLIDGE, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-14
Citations: 328 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 09-6465
Parties: Rodolfo Aveleano SALINAS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLIDGE, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
Rodolfo Aveleano SALINAS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLIDGE, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6465.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2009.
Decided: July 14, 2009.
Rodolfo Aveleano Salinas, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodolfo Aveleano Salinas 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. 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 dispos-itive 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 Salinas 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.