Case Name: Dean L. PRUE, Jr., Petitioner- Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-30
Citations: 329 F. App'x 501
Docket Number: No. 09-6609
Parties: Dean L. PRUE, Jr., Petitioner— Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 501–502

Head Matter:
Dean L. PRUE, Jr., Petitioner— Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 09-6609.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2009.
Decided: July 30, 2009.
Dean L. Prue, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Everett Williams, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dean L. Prue, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 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 Prue has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss 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.