Case Name: Mark LOCKLEAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cordelia CLARK, Administrator, Lanesboro Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-01
Citations: 216 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 06-7846
Parties: Mark LOCKLEAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cordelia CLARK, Administrator, Lanesboro Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Mark LOCKLEAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cordelia CLARK, Administrator, Lanesboro Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7846.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 1, 2007.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark Locklear seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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 Locklear 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.