Case Name: Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MCI-H, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-02
Citations: 99 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 03-7955
Parties: Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner—Appellant, v. MCI-H, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 99
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner—Appellant, v. MCI-H, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 27, 2004.
Decided June 2, 2004.
Frank M. Neff, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM.
Frank M. Neff seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his complaint, in which Neff alleged that the Maryland Division of Corrections miscalculated his release date. Neff raised this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The district court denied relief based on Neffs failure to exhaust state remedies.
To the extent Neff appeals the denial of relief under § 2241, he may not do so unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas petitioner meets 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 Neff has not made the requisite showing.
To the extent that Neff appeals the denial of relief on his § 1983 claim, we find no error in the district court's decision. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
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