Case Name: Winfred Douglas WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-27
Citations: 267 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 07-7092
Parties: Winfred Douglas WRIGHT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
Winfred Douglas WRIGHT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7092.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 24, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2008.
Winfred Douglas Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Winfred Douglas Wright 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 dis-positive 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 Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.