Case Name: Xavier Dominique JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Grady J. HAYNES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-27
Citations: 289 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 08-6842
Parties: Xavier Dominique JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Grady J. HAYNES, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
Xavier Dominique JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Grady J. HAYNES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6842.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2008.
Xavier Dominique Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Xavier Dominique Johnson 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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Johnson's motion 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.