Case Name: Warren Rayvon SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 308 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 08-7599
Parties: Warren Rayvon SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
Warren Rayvon SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7599.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 22, 2009.
Warren Rayvon Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Warren Rayvon Sanders seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Sanders' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (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. 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 Sanders 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.