Case Name: Layton Sharmale CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy A. COOPER, III, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; James Hardy, Administrator, Nash Correctional Institution, Nashville, North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-31
Citations: 305 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 08-7196
Parties: Layton Sharmale CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy A. COOPER, III, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; James Hardy, Administrator, Nash Correctional Institution, Nashville, North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
Layton Sharmale CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy A. COOPER, III, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; James Hardy, Administrator, Nash Correctional Institution, Nashville, North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-7196.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 5, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 31, 2008.
Ann Bach Petersen, James R. Glover, Glover & Petersen, PA, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe Del-Forge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Layton Sharmale Cunningham 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 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 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 Cunningham 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.