Case Name: Ronald Lee Taylor HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. BRAXTON, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-15
Citations: 62 F. App'x 553
Docket Number: No. 03-6306
Parties: Ronald Lee Taylor HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. BRAXTON, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 553–553

Head Matter:
Ronald Lee Taylor HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. BRAXTON, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6306.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided May 15, 2003.
Ronald Lee Taylor Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Lee Taylor Henderson, a Virginia 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 a 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), 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 Henderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and the motion for summary judgment 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.