Case Name: David M. CLAYTOR, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-30
Citations: 164 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 05-6241
Parties: David M. CLAYTOR, II, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 392–392

Head Matter:
David M. CLAYTOR, II, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2006.
David M. Claytor, II, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David M. Claytor, II, a state prisoner, 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 appealable 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 the district court's assessment of 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, 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 Claytor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Claytor's motion to file a supplemental informal brief, and deny all other pending motions. 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