Case Name: Timothy Royal KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert SMITH, Superintendent; Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-09
Citations: 102 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 03-6643
Parties: Timothy Royal KING, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert SMITH, Superintendent; Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 340–340

Head Matter:
Timothy Royal KING, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert SMITH, Superintendent; Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-6643.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2004.
Decided: July 9, 2004.
Timothy Royal King, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Timothy Royal King seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider judgment. 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). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-370 (4th Cir.2004) (No. 03-6146). 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 King 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