Case Name: John Thomas ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Robert M. MAUNEY, Warden, Livesay Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-27
Citations: 323 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 08-8601
Parties: John Thomas ROBINSON, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Robert M. MAUNEY, Warden, Livesay Correctional Institution, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
John Thomas ROBINSON, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Robert M. MAUNEY, Warden, Livesay Correctional Institution, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 08-8601.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2009.
Decided: April 27, 2009.
John Thomas Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Thomas Robinson 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 appeal-able 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 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson's motion to stay his case, 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.