Case Name: M. Rodney E. JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones, a/k/a Rodney M. Jones, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon E. Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-01
Citations: 124 F. App'x 807
Docket Number: No. 04-6495
Parties: M. Rodney E. JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones, a/k/a Rodney M. Jones, Petitioner — Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon E. Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 807–808

Head Matter:
M. Rodney E. JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones, a/k/a Rodney M. Jones, Petitioner — Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon E. Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 04-6495.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2005.
Decided: April 1, 2005.
M. Rodney E. Jones, Appellant pro se. David Michael Tatarsky, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
M. Rodney E. Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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). 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 Jones 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