Case Name: Ricky Melvin HOLLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; Thomas McBride, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 192 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 05-7505
Parties: Ricky Melvin HOLLEY, Petitioner— Appellant, v. MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; Thomas McBride, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
Ricky Melvin HOLLEY, Petitioner— Appellant, v. MOUNT OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; Thomas McBride, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 05-7505.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2006.
Decided: July 31, 2006.
James Byron Lees, Jr., Hunt & Lees, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Robert David Goldberg, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ricky Melvin Holley seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 Holley 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.