Case Name: Jimmie L. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, The Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 157 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 05-6887
Parties: Jimmie L. HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, The Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
Jimmie L. HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, The Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6887.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 12, 2005.
Jimmie L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jimmie Lee Hairis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion 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, 336-38, 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 Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Harris' motion for a copy of a physical examination. 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