Case Name: Glenn Doyle TAYLOR, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-19
Citations: 90 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: No. 04-6020
Parties: Glenn Doyle TAYLOR, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
Glenn Doyle TAYLOR, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6020.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 19, 2004.
Glenn Doyle Taylor, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Glenn Doyle Taylor, Jr., a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Taylor's motion for 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