Case Name: Henry Marshall BAILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don WOOD, Superintendent, Scotland Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-20
Citations: 234 F. App'x 121
Docket Number: No. 07-6194
Parties: Henry Marshall BAILEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Don WOOD, Superintendent, Scotland Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 121–121

Head Matter:
Henry Marshall BAILEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Don WOOD, Superintendent, Scotland Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6194.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 6, 2007.
Decided: July 20, 2007.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Henry Marshall Bailey 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 (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 certifícate 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 dis-positive 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 Bailey 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.