Case Name: Alphonzo BASKERVILLE, a/k/a Alfonza Baskerville, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-11
Citations: 189 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 06-6314
Parties: Alphonzo BASKERVILLE, a/k/a Alfonza Baskerville, Petitioner—Appellant, v. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 189
Pages: 236–236

Head Matter:
Alphonzo BASKERVILLE, a/k/a Alfonza Baskerville, Petitioner—Appellant, v. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6314.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2006.
Decided: July 11, 2006.
Alphonzo Baskerville, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alphonzo Baskerville 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. 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 his 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 Baskerville 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 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).