Case Name: Darnell L. HUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-01
Citations: 380 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 09-7853
Parties: Darnell L. HUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 247–247

Head Matter:
Darnell L. HUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7853.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2010.
Decided: June 1, 2010.
Darnell L. Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darnell L. Hunter seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hunter's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2). 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, 484-85, 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 Hunter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hunter's motion for 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.