Case Name: Kevin Ray MIDDLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 08-8092
Parties: Kevin Ray MIDDLETON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
Kevin Ray MIDDLETON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-8092.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 25, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 14, 2009.
Kevin Ray Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Ray Middleton 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 appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 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 Middleton 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.