Case Name: Harry BROCKWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-07
Citations: 101 F. App'x 940
Docket Number: No. 03-7551
Parties: Harry BROCKWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 940–941

Head Matter:
Harry BROCKWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-7551.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 23, 2004.
Decided July 7, 2004.
Harry Brockwell, Appellant pro se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Harry Custis Brockwell seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his "motion for a void judgement," which the court construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-71 (4th Cir. 2004) (No. 03-6146). 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 Brockwell 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