Case Name: Steven Antwone WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-23
Citations: 83 F. App'x 559
Docket Number: No. 03-7597
Parties: Steven Antwone WATSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 559–560

Head Matter:
Steven Antwone WATSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7597.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 23, 2003.
Steven Antwone Watson, Appellant pro se.
Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Steven Antwone Watson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watson'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
The parties consented to the magistrate judge's exercise of jurisdiction in the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).