Case Name: Maurice Paul BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 114 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 04-7330
Parties: Maurice Paul BROOKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
Maurice Paul BROOKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7330.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided Dec. 1, 2004.
Maurice Paul Brooks, Appellant pro se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Maurice Paul Brooks appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. 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 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 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 Brooks 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED