Case Name: John Matthews GRANT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-24
Citations: 91 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 03-7404
Parties: John Matthews GRANT, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
John Matthews GRANT, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-7404.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 30, 2004.
Decided: March 24, 2004.
David Bernard Hargett, Hargett & Watson, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
John Matthews Grant, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 Grant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala bility 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