Case Name: Derrick D. BOGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bob SMITH, Supt., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 275 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 08-6164
Parties: Derrick D. BOGER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bob SMITH, Supt., Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 262–262

Head Matter:
Derrick D. BOGER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bob SMITH, Supt., Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6164.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: April 29, 2008.
Deirick D. Boger, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Derrick D. Boger seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 dis-positive 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 Boger has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.