Case Name: Roger Paul PARSONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-17
Citations: 167 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 05-7383
Parties: Roger Paul PARSONS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
Roger Paul PARSONS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7383.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 17, 2006.
James McCall Cagle, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Colleen Anne Ford, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roger Paul Parsons, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless this court 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 Parsons 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