Case Name: Keith Wayne BURDETTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee, and James Coleman, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-16
Citations: 112 F. App'x 926
Docket Number: No. 04-6892
Parties: Keith Wayne BURDETTE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent—Appellee, and James Coleman, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Defendant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 926–926

Head Matter:
Keith Wayne BURDETTE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent—Appellee, and James Coleman, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Defendant.
No. 04-6892.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 20, 2004.
Decided Nov. 16, 2004.
Keith Wayne Burdette, Appellant pro se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen Warfield, Allen Hayes Loughry, II, Jon Rufus Blevins, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Keith Wayne Burdette, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Burdette 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