Case Name: Antonio Eugene GAYNOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEFENDANT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-26
Citations: 132 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 05-6276
Parties: Antonio Eugene GAYNOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEFENDANT, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Antonio Eugene GAYNOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEFENDANT, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6276.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2005.
Decided May 26, 2005.
Antonio Eugene Gaynor, Appellant pro se. Denise Colette Anderson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Antonio Eugene Gaynor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust state remedies. This order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 (4th Cir.2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gaynor 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