Case Name: Corey Lorenzo WOODFOLK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-02
Citations: 122 F. App'x 78
Docket Number: No. 04-7748
Parties: Corey Lorenzo WOODFOLK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 78–79

Head Matter:
Corey Lorenzo WOODFOLK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7748.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2005.
Decided March 2, 2005.
Corey Lorenzo Woodfolk, Appellant pro se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Corey Lorenzo Woodfolk, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woodfolk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Woodfolk's motion to amend the pleadings, 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.