Case Name: Bobby Lee HURLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry JARVIS, Warden, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-25
Citations: 111 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 03-7799
Parties: Bobby Lee HURLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry JARVIS, Warden, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Bobby Lee HURLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry JARVIS, Warden, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-7799.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 4, 2004.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2004.
Bobby Lee Hurley, Appellant pro se.
Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bobby Lee Hurley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to alter judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) seeking relief from the underlying denial of his petition 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Hur ley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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