Case Name: Dock HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-25
Citations: 141 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 05-6563
Parties: Dock HUNT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Dock HUNT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6563.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.
Dock Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Colette Anderson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dock Hunt, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 Hunt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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