Case Name: Rodney WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-05
Citations: 269 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 07-7405
Parties: Rodney WILSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 299–299

Head Matter:
Rodney WILSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7405.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2008.
Decided: March 5, 2008.
Rodney Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Wilson 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 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 dis-positive 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 Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wilson's motions for a certificate of appealability and 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.