Case Name: Ian Aulden CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy A. COOPER, III; Frederick Hubbard, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-04
Citations: 368 F. App'x 400
Docket Number: No. 09-7468
Parties: Ian Aulden CAMPBELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roy A. COOPER, III; Frederick Hubbard, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
Ian Aulden CAMPBELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roy A. COOPER, III; Frederick Hubbard, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7468.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2010.
Decided: March 4, 2010.
Ann Bach Petersen, Glover & Petersen, PA, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ian Aulden Campbell seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying reconsideration of that order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. See 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 Campbell 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.