Case Name: Douglas Lee HUSKETH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Superintendent, Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-22
Citations: 103 F. App'x 502
Docket Number: No. 04-6598
Parties: Douglas Lee HUSKETH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Superintendent, Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
Douglas Lee HUSKETH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Superintendent, Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6598.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 22, 2004.
Douglas Lee Husketh, Appellant pro se.
Roy Asberry Cooper, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Lee Husketh, Junior, 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 § 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 absent "a sub stantial 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 Husketh 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