Case Name: Decarlos D. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-02
Citations: 169 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 05-7527
Parties: Decarlos D. COLEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
Decarlos D. COLEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7527.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided: March 2, 2006.
DeCarlos D. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
DeCarlos D. Coleman, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 the magistrate judge's assessment of his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the magistrate judge are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coleman's motion for 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 the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).