Case Name: Michael Anthony DAMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas R. CARROLL, Superintendent Johnston Correctional Institute, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-07
Citations: 199 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 06-6751
Parties: Michael Anthony DAMMONS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas R. CARROLL, Superintendent Johnston Correctional Institute, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
Michael Anthony DAMMONS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas R. CARROLL, Superintendent Johnston Correctional Institute, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6751.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2006.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., the Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Anthony Dammons 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 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 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 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 Dammons 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.