Case Name: Kevin Dewayne GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Warden Buckingham Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-04
Citations: 178 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 05-7808
Parties: Kevin Dewayne GRAHAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Warden Buckingham Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Kevin Dewayne GRAHAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Warden Buckingham Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7808.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 4, 2006.
Kevin DeWayne Graham, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin DeWayne Graham, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying without prejudice 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 ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Graham 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