Case Name: Larriante SUMBRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecil DAVIS, Superintendent of Indiana State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-22
Citations: 160 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 05-7753
Parties: Larriante SUMBRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cecil DAVIS, Superintendent of Indiana State Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 160
Pages: 295–295

Head Matter:
Larriante SUMBRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cecil DAVIS, Superintendent of Indiana State Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7753.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2005.
Decided Dec. 22, 2005.
Larriante Sumbry, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larriante Sumbry, an Indiana inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Sumbry 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