Case Name: Randy Dean STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-01
Citations: 225 F. App'x 102
Docket Number: No. 06-6636
Parties: Randy Dean STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 102–103

Head Matter:
Randy Dean STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6636.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 1, 2007.
Randy Dean Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Randy Dean Stewart 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 ap-pealability 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 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.