Case Name: Travis Ejgene DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden of R.O.S.P, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-30
Citations: 144 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 05-6799
Parties: Travis Ejgene DANIELS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden of R.O.S.P, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
Travis Ejgene DANIELS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden of R.O.S.P, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6799.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2005.
Travis Eugene Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Travis Eugene Daniels, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his peti tion 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 will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Daniels 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 the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).