Case Name: Gary John MOFFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Howard PAINTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-29
Citations: 63 F. App'x 771
Docket Number: No. 03-6452
Parties: Gary John MOFFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Howard PAINTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 771–771

Head Matter:
Gary John MOFFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Howard PAINTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6452.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2003.
Decided May 29, 2003.
Gary John Moffa, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Gary John Moffa seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief on his petition 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moffa has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.