Case Name: Joshua Mitch JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; James Sisk, Manager of Legal Services; Kathy Bassett, Warden and Superintendent, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-21
Citations: 119 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 04-7095
Parties: Joshua Mitch JOHNSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; James Sisk, Manager of Legal Services; Kathy Bassett, Warden and Superintendent, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Joshua Mitch JOHNSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; James Sisk, Manager of Legal Services; Kathy Bassett, Warden and Superintendent, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7095.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2004.
Decided Jan. 21, 2005.
Joshua Mitch Johnson, Appellant pro se. Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joshua Mitch Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 that his constitutional claims are debatable 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 Johnson 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