Case Name: Jason ROWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bobby G. COMPTON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-20
Citations: 106 F. App'x 863
Docket Number: No. 04-6987
Parties: Jason ROWE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Bobby G. COMPTON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 106
Pages: 863–864

Head Matter:
Jason ROWE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Bobby G. COMPTON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-6987.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 12, 2004.
Decided Aug. 20, 2004.
Jason Rowe, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Jason Rowe, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order that construed his petition labeled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) action as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and dismissed the action without prejudice, and the court's order denying reconsideration. 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 ap-pealability. 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, 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 Rowe 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