Case Name: Stephen Dean LOUGHREY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. MAHON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-29
Citations: 95 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 03-7884
Parties: Stephen Dean LOUGHREY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D. MAHON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 525–525

Head Matter:
Stephen Dean LOUGHREY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D. MAHON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7884.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 19, 2004.
Decided April 29, 2004.
Stephen Dean Loughrey, Appellant pro se.
Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Stephen Dean Loughrey seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Loughrey cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 Loughrey 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