Case Name: Robert FIELDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas B. VAUGHN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-02
Citations: 372 F. App'x 367
Docket Number: No. 09-7890
Parties: Robert FIELDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Douglas B. VAUGHN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 367–368

Head Matter:
Robert FIELDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Douglas B. VAUGHN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-7890.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 2, 2010.
Robert Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Fields seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 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 assess ment 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 Fields has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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 magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).