Case Name: Ross Bonifacio ABIDO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-20
Citations: 361 F. App'x 486
Docket Number: No. 09-6717
Parties: Ross Bonifacio ABIDO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Facility, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 486–486

Head Matter:
Ross Bonifacio ABIDO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Facility, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6717.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2010.
Ross Bonifacio Abido, Appellant pro se. R. Christopher Smith, Charleston, WV; Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, WV, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ross Bonifacio Abido 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 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 dis-positive 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 Abido has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Abido's 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.