Case Name: Billy Gene LEDWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-19
Citations: 224 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 06-7786
Parties: Billy Gene LEDWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Billy Gene LEDWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7786.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 4, 2007.
Decided: April 19, 2007.
Billy Gene Ledwell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee,
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Billy Gene Ledwell 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 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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 Ledwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.