Case Name: Tommy BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-24
Citations: 319 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 08-8406
Parties: Tommy BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Tommy BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-8406.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2009.
Decided: March 24, 2009.
Tommy Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM Opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 disposi-tive 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 Burgess has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.