Case Name: William Gregory COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas V. MILLER, III, Commissioner; Maryland Parole Commission, Individual Capacity, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-14
Citations: 60 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 03-6105
Parties: William Gregory COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas V. MILLER, III, Commissioner; Maryland Parole Commission, Individual Capacity, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
William Gregory COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas V. MILLER, III, Commissioner; Maryland Parole Commission, Individual Capacity, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6105.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 3, 2003.
Decided April 14, 2003.
William Gregory Cook, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Gregory Cook, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), which the district court construed as a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). On appeal, Cook contends that the district court erred in construing his complaint as a habeas petition and dismissing it for failure to exhaust state remedies. We conclude that Cook's claim was not cognizable under § 1983, and the district court properly construed it as sounding in habeas. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.' " Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), 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 Cook has not made the requisite showing. See Miller El v. Cockrell _ U.S. _, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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.