Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony FARROW, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-25
Citations: 146 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 05-7112
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Anthony FARROW, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Anthony FARROW, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7112.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.
Decided Oct. 25, 2005.
Michael Anthony Farrow, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Anthony Farrow seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting and affirming the magistrate judge's order dismissing without prejudice Farrow's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Farrow has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Farrow's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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