Case Name: Victor ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-20
Citations: 221 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 06-7517
Parties: Victor ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
Victor ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7517.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2007.
Decided: March 20, 2007.
Victor Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Victor Roberts, a state prisoner, 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 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts 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.