Case Name: Willis Andrea JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 106 F. App'x 846
Docket Number: No. 04-6870
Parties: Willis Andrea JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 106
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
Willis Andrea JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6870.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 12, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 19, 2004.
Willis Andrea Jones, Appellant pro se.
Teresa Harris Pell, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Willis Andrea Jones, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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 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 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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