Case Name: James Walton HAMMOND, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK; Robert Lee, Respondents-Appellees, and State of North Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-16
Citations: 306 F. App'x 830
Docket Number: No. 08-7629
Parties: James Walton HAMMOND, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK; Robert Lee, Respondents—Appellees, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 306
Pages: 830–831

Head Matter:
James Walton HAMMOND, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK; Robert Lee, Respondents—Appellees, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.
No. 08-7629.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.
James Walton Hammond, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Walton Hammond, 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 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 Hammond 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.