Case Name: James Christopher ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-24
Citations: 285 F. App'x 59
Docket Number: No. 08-6204
Parties: James Christopher ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
James Christopher ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: June 24, 2008.
James Christopher Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Christopher Anderson seeks to appeal the orders of the magistrate judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and his motion to reconsider. 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 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 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 con- elude that Anderson 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.
The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).