Case Name: Johnny NEALY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-04
Citations: 326 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 08-8524
Parties: Johnny NEALY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 163–163

Head Matter:
Johnny NEALY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina, Respondents.
No. 08-8524.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 4, 2009.
Johnny Nealy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Nealy 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 (2006) 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) (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. 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 Nealy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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.