Case Name: Martin Ray BYLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Reggie WEISNER, Captain, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-30
Citations: 324 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 08-7884
Parties: Martin Ray BYLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Reggie WEISNER, Captain, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
Martin Ray BYLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Reggie WEISNER, Captain, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7884.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009.
Decided: April 30, 2009.
Thomas Hilton Johnson, Jr., Gray Johnson Blackmon Lee & Lawson, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Ray Byler 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 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 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 Byler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Byler's motion for bail pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.