Case Name: Jacob Leon MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-30
Citations: 137 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 05-6316
Parties: Jacob Leon MITCHELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 137
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Jacob Leon MITCHELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6316.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2005.
Decided: June 30, 2005.
Jacob Leon Mitchell, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jacob Leon Mitchell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to exhaust state remedies. The order is not appealable 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 Mitchell 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