Case Name: IStarr DALTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jim RUBENSTEIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-05
Citations: 340 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 09-6525
Parties: IStarr DALTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jim RUBENSTEIN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 340
Pages: 171–171

Head Matter:
IStarr DALTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jim RUBENSTEIN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6525.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2009.
IStarr Dalton, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
IStarr Dalton seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 ap-pealability 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 dis-positive 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 Dalton 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.