Case Name: Raymond GOEDEKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-12
Citations: 269 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 07-7523
Parties: Raymond GOEDEKE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
Raymond GOEDEKE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7523.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2008.
Decided: March 12, 2008.
Raymond Goedeke, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Dawn Ellen War-field, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Goedeke 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 certifícate 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 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 Goedeke has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability, deny Goedeke's motion to appoint counsel, 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.