Case Name: Jeremiah ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith WHITENER, Superintendent, Alexander Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-06
Citations: 339 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 09-6698
Parties: Jeremiah ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith WHITENER, Superintendent, Alexander Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
Jeremiah ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith WHITENER, Superintendent, Alexander Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-6698.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2009.
Jeremiah Royster, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jeremiah Royster seeks to appeal the district court'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 certifícate 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 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 Roy-ster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Royster'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.