UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6413
SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Administrator, Harnett
Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00662-JAB)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 6, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Santiago Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin William Keller, Jr.,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Santiago Rodriguez 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 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate 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 dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rodriguez has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rodriguez’s
motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny reconsideration of the district court’s denial
of in forma pauperis status, 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
- 2 -