Case Name: Michael W. OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-05
Citations: 112 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 04-7285
Parties: Michael W. OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 295–295

Head Matter:
Michael W. OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7285.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 27, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2004.
Michael W. Owens, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael W. Owens seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Owens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Owens' motion for 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