Case Name: Laura J. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN; Carolyn Atkins, Warden; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-03
Citations: 368 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 09-7489
Parties: Laura J. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN; Carolyn Atkins, Warden; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
Laura J. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN; Carolyn Atkins, Warden; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7489.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2010.
Decided: March 3, 2010.
Laura J. Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Laura J. Moore seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Moore 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.