Case Name: Tyare RIDDICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 223 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 06-7507
Parties: Tyare RIDDICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
Tyare RIDDICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7507.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2007.
Decided: April 9, 2007.
Tyare Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lee Parrish, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tyare Riddick seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 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 Riddick 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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.