Case Name: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-26
Citations: 141 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 05-6809
Parties: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 233–233

Head Matter:
Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6809.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant pro se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for discovery. 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Pleasant 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
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).