Case Name: James Elve FLOWERS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randall LEE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-30
Citations: 114 F. App'x 94
Docket Number: No. 04-6968
Parties: James Elve FLOWERS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randall LEE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
James Elve FLOWERS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randall LEE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6968.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2004.
James Elve Flowers, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Elve Flowers, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, rejecting Flowers's claims on their merits, and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Flowers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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 hot aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED