Case Name: Clemmie Lee COVINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Corrections; Emilio Pagan, Superintendent of the Morrison Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-28
Citations: 172 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 05-6786
Parties: Clemmie Lee COVINGTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Corrections; Emilio Pagan, Superintendent of the Morrison Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
Clemmie Lee COVINGTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Corrections; Emilio Pagan, Superintendent of the Morrison Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6786.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2006.
Henry Turner Drake, Wadesboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe Del-Forge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clemmie Lee Covington, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's or der accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Covington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Covington's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.