Case Name: Eric Mitchell BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 109 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 04-6832
Parties: Eric Mitchell BROOKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Eric Mitchell BROOKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6832.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided Sept. 22, 2004.
Eric Mitchell Brooks, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eric Mitchell Brooks, 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 on all claims. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifi cate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 Brooks 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