Case Name: Robert M. LANCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 193 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 06-6945
Parties: Robert M. LANCE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
Robert M. LANCE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6945.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 2006.
Decided Aug. 3, 2006.
Robert M. Lance, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert M. Lance, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 Lance 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
We further reject Lance's contention that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to make a recommendation to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).