Case Name: Jason ORTEGA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of VDOC, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-05
Citations: 253 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 07-7080
Parties: Jason ORTEGA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of VDOC, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
Jason ORTEGA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of VDOC, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7080.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 5, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2007.
Jason Ortega, Appellant pro se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jason Ortega seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order 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 Ortega 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.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).