Case Name: Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-03
Citations: 161 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 05-7252
Parties: Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 22, 2005.
Decided: Jan. 3, 2006.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his motion seeking to amend his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 substan tial 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, deny his motion for a certificate of appeal-ability, 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 jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).