Case Name: Stanford CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-28
Citations: 329 F. App'x 486
Docket Number: No. 08-7966
Parties: Stanford CAIN, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
Stanford CAIN, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 08-7966.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2009.
Decided: July 28, 2009.
Stanford Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanford Cain 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 (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 ap-pealability 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 dem onstrating 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 Cain has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Cain'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.