Case Name: Adrian JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-02
Citations: 120 F. App'x 482
Docket Number: No. 04-7378
Parties: Adrian JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 482–483

Head Matter:
Adrian JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7378.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 2, 2005.
Adrian Jones, Appellant pro se.
Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. The oi'der is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004). A certifícate 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED