Case Name: Stanley Tyrone PALMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H. POWELL, Warden, Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-13
Citations: 110 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 04-6675
Parties: Stanley Tyrone PALMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H. POWELL, Warden, Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 355–355

Head Matter:
Stanley Tyrone PALMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H. POWELL, Warden, Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6675.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 7, 2004.
Decided: Oct. 13, 2004.
Stanley Tyrone Palmer, Appellant pro se.
Alice Theresa Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stanley Tyrone Palmer seeks to appeal the magistrate judge'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 habeas corpus 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 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 Palmer 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).