Case Name: Patrick ROBERTS, a/k/a Patrick Jermaine Roberts, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian PATTON, Warden FCI Ashland; Attorney General Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-06
Citations: 315 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 08-7932
Parties: Patrick ROBERTS, a/k/a Patrick Jermaine Roberts, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian PATTON, Warden FCI Ashland; Attorney General Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
Patrick ROBERTS, a/k/a Patrick Jermaine Roberts, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian PATTON, Warden FCI Ashland; Attorney General Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-7932.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.
Decided: March 6, 2009.
Patrick Jermaine Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Jermaine Roberts seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part 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 Roberts 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.