Case Name: Robert L. GROOMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-30
Citations: 114 F. App'x 96
Docket Number: No. 04-7227
Parties: Robert L. GROOMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
Robert L. GROOMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7227.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2004.
Robert L. Grooms, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Grooms, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice for failure to comply with a district court order. 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, 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 Grooms 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