Case Name: Brandon Clarence JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEFENDANT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-30
Citations: 207 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 06-6936
Parties: Brandon Clarence JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEFENDANT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Brandon Clarence JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEFENDANT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-6936.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2006.
Brandon Clarence Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Clarence Jefferson seeks to appeal the district court's order construing, in part, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, denying relief on those claims, and dismissing the complaint. The order is not appealable 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 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. 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 Jefferson has not made the requisite showing. We further find that any claims for damages under § 1983 are frivolous.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.