Case Name: William S.V. PATTERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-26
Citations: 289 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 08-6375
Parties: William S.V. PATTERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
William S.V. PATTERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
No. 08-6375.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2008.
William S.V. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden, II, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William S.V. Patterson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge'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 reviewed the record and conclude that Patterson 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.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).