Case Name: Antoine L. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-31
Citations: 271 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 08-6120
Parties: Antoine L. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 332–332

Head Matter:
Antoine L. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6120.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: March 31, 2008.
Antoine L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Karen Misbach, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antoine L. Thomas 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 appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.