Case Name: Aron JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-08
Citations: 305 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 08-6463
Parties: Aron JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
Aron JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6463.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 23, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 8, 2009.
Aron Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Aron Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court'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 appeal-ability. See 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. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Johnson's motion to amend his informal brief and deny his motion to amend to permit discovery. Finally, 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.