Case Name: William D. MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas C. DEVENYNS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-09
Citations: 67 F. App'x 838
Docket Number: No. 03-6388
Parties: William D. MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas C. DEVENYNS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 838–839

Head Matter:
William D. MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas C. DEVENYNS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6388.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 28, 2003.
Decided July 9, 2003.
William D. Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William D. Marshall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief without prejudice on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2241 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall 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.