Case Name: Holly LANDRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-08
Citations: 193 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 06-6679
Parties: Holly LANDRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 261–261

Head Matter:
Holly LANDRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6679.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 8, 2006.
Holly Landry, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Holly Landry seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 that Landry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Landry's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 parties consented to proceed before a United States magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).