Case Name: Tyrone THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathleen GREEN, Warden; State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-26
Citations: 271 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: No. 07-7336
Parties: Tyrone THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathleen GREEN, Warden; State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
Tyrone THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathleen GREEN, Warden; State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-7336.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 29, 2008.
Decided: March 26, 2008.
Tyrone Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Thomas seeks to appeal the district court's order 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A cer tificate 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. See 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 Thomas 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.