Case Name: Milton Byrle LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Greenville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-13
Citations: 200 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 06-6508
Parties: Milton Byrle LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Greenville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 200
Pages: 176–176

Head Matter:
Milton Byrle LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Greenville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6508.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, .2006.
Decided: Sept. 13, 2006.
Milton Byrle Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Milton Byrle Lee, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge'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 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 Lee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lee's motion for 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.
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.