Case Name: Jesse Thomas GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willard JOBE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-21
Citations: 206 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 06-7137
Parties: Jesse Thomas GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willard JOBE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
Jesse Thomas GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willard JOBE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7137.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2006.
Jesse Thomas Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Thomas Graham 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 appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional 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 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 Graham 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.