Case Name: Catherine D. RANDOLPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CLIFTON T. PERKINS STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-22
Citations: 334 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 09-7422
Parties: Catherine D. RANDOLPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CLIFTON T. PERKINS STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
Catherine D. RANDOLPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CLIFTON T. PERKINS STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7422.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2009.
Catherine D. Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen A. Ellis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Catherine D. Randolph, a state inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 ap-pealability 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 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 Randolph has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Randolph's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.