Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lincoln Monroe BROCK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-05
Citations: 372 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 09-7981
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lincoln Monroe BROCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lincoln Monroe BROCK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7981.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 5, 2010.
Lincoln Monroe Brock, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lincoln Monroe Brock seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 dispositive 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 Brock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, 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.