Case Name: Willie YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-16
Citations: 326 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 08-8241
Parties: Willie YOUNG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
Willie YOUNG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-8241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 3, 2009.
Decided: June 16, 2009.
Willie Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Willie Young 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 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 Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss 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.