Case Name: Donald Eugene GRIFFIN, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.J. PADULA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-01
Citations: 271 F. App'x 370
Docket Number: No. 07-7252
Parties: Donald Eugene GRIFFIN, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.J. PADULA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 370–370

Head Matter:
Donald Eugene GRIFFIN, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.J. PADULA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-7252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2008.
Decided: April 1, 2008.
Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his motion to alter or amend. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(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 Griffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 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.