Case Name: Hobart Matthew PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-26
Citations: 348 F. App'x 878
Docket Number: No. 09-6940
Parties: Hobart Matthew PARKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 878–879

Head Matter:
Hobart Matthew PARKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6940.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 26, 2009.
Hobart Matthew Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Joanne Virginia Frye, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hobart Matthew Parker 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 appealability 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 Parker 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.