Case Name: Herbert CHAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; William L. Osteen, Judge; State of North Carolina; Michael T.W. Bell, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-25
Citations: 262 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 07-7355
Parties: Herbert CHAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; William L. Osteen, Judge; State of North Carolina; Michael T.W. Bell, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
Herbert CHAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; William L. Osteen, Judge; State of North Carolina; Michael T.W. Bell, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-7355.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.
Herbert Chavis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Chavis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders construing his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying the petition and Chavis' motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Chavis 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.