Case Name: Duane Anthony JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-23
Citations: 87 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 03-7861
Parties: Duane Anthony JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
Duane Anthony JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7861.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
Duane Anthony Jones, Appellant pro se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Duane Anthony Jones, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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 Jones 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 ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED