Case Name: James Dion PALMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-19
Citations: 82 F. App'x 854
Docket Number: No. 03-7178
Parties: James Dion PALMER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 854–855

Head Matter:
James Dion PALMER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7178.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 19, 2003.
James Dion Palmer, Appellant pro se.
Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Dion Palmer 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 Palmer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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