Case Name: Timothy AVERY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Raymond REED, Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-31
Citations: 124 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 05-6094
Parties: Timothy AVERY, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Raymond REED, Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
Timothy AVERY, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Raymond REED, Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 05-6094.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2005.
Decided: March 31, 2005.
Timothy Avery, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Timothy Avery 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) based on Avery's failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 Avery has not shown the district court's procedures ruling to be debatable or wrong. 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