Case Name: Herbert CHAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-01
Citations: 283 F. App'x 91
Docket Number: No. 08-6208
Parties: Herbert CHAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
Herbert CHAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6208.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: July 1, 2008.
Herbert Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Chavis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his application for a certificate of appealability to appeal from the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Chavis' 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 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 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 Chavis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.