Case Name: Kenneth Michael BOEKENOOGEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Supt.; Theodis Beck, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-04
Citations: 354 F. App'x 766
Docket Number: No. 09-7620
Parties: Kenneth Michael BOEKENOOGEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Supt.; Theodis Beck, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 354
Pages: 766–767

Head Matter:
Kenneth Michael BOEKENOOGEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Supt.; Theodis Beck, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7620.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 4, 2009.
Kenneth Michael Boekenoogen, Appellant pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Michael Boekenoogen seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a sub stantial 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 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 Boekenoogen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boekenoogen'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.