Case Name: Harry JARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-17
Citations: 317 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 08-7130
Parties: Harry JARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. .
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 317
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
Harry JARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7130.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 19, 2009.
Decided: March 17, 2009.
Harry Jarrell, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. .

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harry Jarrell seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 con stitutional 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 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 Jarrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jarrell's motion for 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.