Case Name: Roger Emmett CLINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William M. FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-06
Citations: 268 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 07-7470
Parties: Roger Emmett CLINE, Petitioner— Appellant, v. William M. FOX, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 268
Pages: 258–258

Head Matter:
Roger Emmett CLINE, Petitioner— Appellant, v. William M. FOX, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
No. 07-7470.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2008.
Decided: March 6, 2008.
Roger Emmett Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roger Emmett Cline seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. 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 Cline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Cline's motions for 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.