Case Name: Clifton Derwin BADGETT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections-Annex; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-23
Citations: 84 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 03-7578
Parties: Clifton Derwin BADGETT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections-Annex; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Clifton Derwin BADGETT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections-Annex; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-7578.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 23, 2003.
Clifton Derwin Badgett, Jr., Appellant pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Edward Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Clifton Derwin Badgett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Badgett 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