Case Name: Ralph DELAHOUSSAYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-21
Citations: 274 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 07-7226
Parties: Ralph DELAHOUSSAYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Ralph DELAHOUSSAYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7226.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 21, 2008.
Ralph Delahoussaye, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ralph Delahoussaye seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Delahoussaye 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.