Case Name: Robert Joseph KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis BARTON, M.D.; Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-30
Citations: 207 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 06-7239
Parties: Robert Joseph KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis BARTON, M.D.; Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
Robert Joseph KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis BARTON, M.D.; Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7239.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2006.
Robert Joseph King, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen A. Ellis, Tracee Orlove Fruman, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Joseph King, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) 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) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 King 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.