Case Name: Jackie Dane TERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-25
Citations: 204 F. App'x 270
Docket Number: No. 05-7472
Parties: Jackie Dane TERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
Jackie Dane TERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7472.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 11, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2006.
Jackie Dane Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Jon Rufus Blevins, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jackie Dane Terry 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 (2000) 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) (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 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 Terry 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.