Case Name: Julius Kevin EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-28
Citations: 363 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 09-8057
Parties: Julius Kevin EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
Julius Kevin EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-8057.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2010.
Julius Kevin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julius Kevin Edwards seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 disposi-tive 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 Edwards 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.