Case Name: Charles Jerall SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-25
Citations: 214 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 06-6720
Parties: Charles Jerall SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 350–351

Head Matter:
Charles Jerall SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6720.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 4, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2007.
Charles Jerall Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lee Parrish, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Jerall Smith 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 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 rec ord and conclude that Smith 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.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), the parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in the case.