Case Name: Patricia Ann ALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Respondent-Appellee, and Dale Humphreys, Warden, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-02
Citations: 347 F. App'x 969
Docket Number: No. 09-6653
Parties: Patricia Ann ALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Respondent-Appellee, and Dale Humphreys, Warden, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 347
Pages: 969–970

Head Matter:
Patricia Ann ALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Respondent-Appellee, and Dale Humphreys, Warden, Respondent.
No. 09-6653.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2009.
Decided Oct. 2, 2009.
Patricia Ann Aldridge, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Darrell V. McGraw, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Ann Aldridge seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Aldridge 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.