Case Name: David Wesley SPENCER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 224 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 06-7230
Parties: David Wesley SPENCER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
David Wesley SPENCER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7230.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2007.
Decided: April 24, 2007.
David Wesley Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Wesley Spencer 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 ap pealability. 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 magistrate judge is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the 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 record and conclude that Spencer 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 proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000); Fed.RXiv.P. 73.