Case Name: Frank REAVES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-30
Citations: 215 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 06-7613
Parties: Frank REAVES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Frank REAVES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7613.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2007.
Frank Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Frank Reaves seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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 substan tial 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. 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 Reaves has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reaves' motion for appointment of counsel, 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.