Case Name: David Edward MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-08
Citations: 273 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 07-7600
Parties: David Edward MOORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 273
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
David Edward MOORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7600.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2008.
Decided: April 8, 2008.
David Edward Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Edward Moore seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating his "Motion to Reopen 2254 Petition on Nonadjudicated Claims" as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 684 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Moore 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.