Case Name: Johnny Marrocco WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-21
Citations: 126 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 05-6102
Parties: Johnny Marrocco WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
Johnny Marrocco WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6102.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 14, 2005.
Decided: April 21, 2005.
Johnny Marrocco Williams, Appellant pro se.
Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Johnny Marrocco Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his motion 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 any dispositive procedural rulings by the magistrate judge 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 Williams 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).