Case Name: Ronald Joseph MAYFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-02
Citations: 91 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 04-6152
Parties: Ronald Joseph MAYFIELD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
Ronald Joseph MAYFIELD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6152.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 25, 2004.
Decided April 2, 2004.
Michael Schatzow, Mitchell Yale Mirviss, Tracey Cohen Paliath, Venable, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronald Joseph Mayfield seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 Mayfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifi cate 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