Case Name: James Michael RASNICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-11
Citations: 141 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 05-6491
Parties: James Michael RASNICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 149–150

Head Matter:
James Michael RASNICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6491.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2005.
Decided Aug. 11, 2005.
James Michael Rasnick, Appellant pro se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Michael Rasnick seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 eonstitution al right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rasnick 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
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).