Case Name: Michael E. TORY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K.J. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-13
Citations: 119 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 04-7225
Parties: Michael E. TORY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. K.J. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Michael E. TORY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. K.J. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7225.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 13, 2005.
Michael E. Tory, Appellant pro se.
John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael E. Tory appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabili ty. 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Tory has not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to exercise of the district court's jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge.