Case Name: Troy Allen LINGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent of Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-01
Citations: 283 F. App'x 91
Docket Number: No. 08-6114
Parties: Troy Allen LINGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent of Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 91–91

Head Matter:
Troy Allen LINGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent of Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6114.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: July 1, 2008.
Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Troy Allen Lingle 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 appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Lingle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lingle's motion for 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.