Case Name: Johnny Calvin OLLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-12
Citations: 131 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 04-7757
Parties: Johnny Calvin OLLIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and •GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
Johnny Calvin OLLIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7757.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2005.
Decided: May 12, 2005.
Johnny Calvin Ollis, Appellant pro se.
Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and •GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Johnny Calvin Ollis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ollis 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