Case Name: Stephan D. BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Superintendent; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-19
Citations: 145 F. App'x 830
Docket Number: No. 05-6806
Parties: Stephan D. BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Superintendent; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 830–830

Head Matter:
Stephan D. BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Superintendent; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-6806.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2005.
Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
Stephan D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Stephan D. Brooks, a North Carolina prisoner, 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 § 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 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 Brooks 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