Case Name: Lorance Cortez LASSITER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-30
Citations: 91 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 03-7616
Parties: Lorance Cortez LASSITER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 889–890

Head Matter:
Lorance Cortez LASSITER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7616.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2004.
Decided: March 30, 2004.
Lorance Cortez Lassiter, Appellant pro se.
Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lorance Cortez Lassiter seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 Lassiter 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
The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).