Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Bender DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-16
Citations: 306 F. App'x 832
Docket Number: No. 08-7582
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John Bender DAVIS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 306
Pages: 832–833

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John Bender DAVIS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7582.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.
John Bender Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Bender Davis, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 constitution al 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 Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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.