Case Name: Elmer Connell TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-26
Citations: 332 F. App'x 897
Docket Number: No. 09-6419
Parties: Elmer Connell TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 897–898

Head Matter:
Elmer Connell TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-6419.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2009.
Elmer Connell Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elmer Connell Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and has moved this court for a certificate of appealability. 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) (2006). 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. See Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Taylor's motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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.