Case Name: Gary Womack MCDONALD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond SMITH, Administrator Caswell Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-31
Citations: 235 F. App'x 99
Docket Number: No. 07-6504
Parties: Gary Womack MCDONALD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Raymond SMITH, Administrator Caswell Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
Gary Womack MCDONALD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Raymond SMITH, Administrator Caswell Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6504.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2007.
Decided: July 31, 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 WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gary Womack McDonald 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 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 sub stantial 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 McDonald 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.