Case Name: Anthony Fitzgerald BARNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-28
Citations: 78 F. App'x 920
Docket Number: No. 03-6690
Parties: Anthony Fitzgerald BARNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 920–920

Head Matter:
Anthony Fitzgerald BARNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 1, 2003.
Decided Oct. 28, 2003.
Anthony Fitzgerald Barnett, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Fitzgerald Barnett seeks to appeal the order of the magistrate judge denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appeal-able only if 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnett 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.
The parties consented to trial before the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).