Case Name: Michael Edwards HANKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Carole F. WALLACE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-18
Citations: 294 F. App'x 48
Docket Number: No. 08-6159
Parties: Michael Edwards HANKINS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Carole F. WALLACE, Warden, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 48–49

Head Matter:
Michael Edwards HANKINS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Carole F. WALLACE, Warden, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 08-6159.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 8, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 18, 2008.
Michael Edwards Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Edwards Hankins seeks to appeal the district court'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. See 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. See 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 re- viewed the record and conclude that Han-kins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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.
Although it appears from the pleadings Han-kins has filed that his middle name is "Edward," the district court's docket and memorandum opinion spell Hankins' middle name as "Edwards." For consistency, we have retained that latter spelling on our docket and in this opinion.