Case Name: Albert Fitzgerald BROCKMAN-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Alvin W. Keller, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-06
Citations: 373 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 10-6068
Parties: Albert Fitzgerald BROCKMAN-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Alvin W. Keller, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
Albert Fitzgerald BROCKMAN-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Alvin W. Keller, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-6068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 6, 2010.
Albert Fitzgerald Brockman-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Albert Fitzgerald Brockman-El 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 appealable 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 disposi-tive 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 Brockman-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.