Case Name: Curtis Jerome LEMON, a/k/a Curtis Lemon, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-06
Citations: 339 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 09-6628
Parties: Curtis Jerome LEMON, a/k/a Curtis Lemon, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Curtis Jerome LEMON, a/k/a Curtis Lemon, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-6628.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 21, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2009.
Curtis Jerome Lemon,; Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Jerome Lemon 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 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 dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 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 Lemon 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.