Case Name: Van Prince WELCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-08
Citations: 333 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 09-7079
Parties: Van Prince WELCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
Van Prince WELCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-7079.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 8, 2009.
Van Prince Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Van Prince Welch seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 dispos-itive 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 Welch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.