Case Name: Victor Eugene VICK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-29
Citations: 124 F. App'x 204
Docket Number: No. 04-7696
Parties: Victor Eugene VICK, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 204–205

Head Matter:
Victor Eugene VICK, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 04-7696.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2005.
Decided: March 29, 2005.
Victor Eugene Vick, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Victor Eugene Vick, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 Vick 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