Case Name: Roger Lee DEAL, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael BELL, Respondent-Appellee; Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael Bell, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-27
Citations: 325 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: Nos. 08-8606, 09-6070
Parties: Roger Lee DEAL, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael BELL, Respondent—Appellee. Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael Bell, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 245–245

Head Matter:
Roger Lee DEAL, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael BELL, Respondent—Appellee. Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael Bell, Respondent—Appellee.
Nos. 08-8606, 09-6070.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2009.
Decided: May 27, 2009.
Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roger Lee Deal, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court's subsequent order denying his request for a certificate of appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. See Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Deal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.