Case Name: Ronald V. HENDRICKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-02
Citations: 283 F. App'x 103
Docket Number: No. 08-6523
Parties: Ronald V. HENDRICKSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
Ronald V. HENDRICKSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6523.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: July 2, 2008.
Ronald V. Hendrickson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald V. Hendrickson seeks to appeal the district court'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 Hendrickson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hendrickson's 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.