Case Name: Franklin WHITFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-24
Citations: 274 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 08-6276
Parties: Franklin WHITFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
Franklin WHITFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6276.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 24, 2008.
Franklin Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Franklin Whitfield seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. § 2258(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. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitfield 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.
The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).