Case Name: Reginald W. FLOWERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-05
Citations: 88 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 03-7571
Parties: Reginald W. FLOWERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
Reginald W. FLOWERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7571.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2004.
Decided March 5, 2004.
Reginald W. Flowers, Appellant pro se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Reginald W. Flowers seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and 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 certifícate 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. 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 Flowers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Flowers's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 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