Case Name: Ralph Franklin FREDRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 540
Docket Number: No. 07-7558
Parties: Ralph Franklin FREDRICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
Ralph Franklin FREDRICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7558.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.
Ralph Franklin Fredrick, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ralph Franklin Fredrick seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Fredrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fredrick's motion for 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.