Case Name: Darryl Lancaster CHERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 241 F. App'x 990
Docket Number: No. 07-6544
Parties: Darryl Lancaster CHERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 990–991

Head Matter:
Darryl Lancaster CHERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6544.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 7, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.
Darryl Lancaster Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Lancaster Cherry seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on 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 ap pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Cherry 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.
The case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties' consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).