Case Name: Theodore Morris FOUST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-30
Citations: 222 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 06-8051
Parties: Theodore Morris FOUST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 302–302

Head Matter:
Theodore Morris FOUST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-8051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2007.
Decided: March 30, 2007.
Theodore Morris Foust, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin William Keller, Jr., North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Theodore Morris Foust 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 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 Foust has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Foust's motions for a certificate of appeal-ability, and to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.