Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lakendrick FOBBS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-17
Citations: 297 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 08-6789
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lakendrick FOBBS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lakendrick FOBBS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6789.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 17, 2008.
Lakendrick Fobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lakendrick Fobbs seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 dispositive 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 Fobbs 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.