Case Name: Devon A. FRYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-30
Citations: 275 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 08-6173
Parties: Devon A. FRYE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
Devon A. FRYE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: April 30, 2008.
Devon A. Frye, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Devon A. Frye seeks to appeal the magistrate judge'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 ap-pealability. 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 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 Frye 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.
The case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties' consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).