Case Name: William Stewart MALONE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-24
Citations: 79 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 01-6105
Parties: William Stewart MALONE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 551–551

Head Matter:
William Stewart MALONE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-6105.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2003.
Decided Oct. 24, 2003.
William Stewart Malone, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Stewart Malone, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Pursuant to a remand order of this court, the district court attempted to address Malone's pending motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). When it became apparent that Malone was no longer incarcerated and had failed to apprise the district court of a forwarding address, the district court dismissed the action. Accordingly, Malone's appeal of the denial of his § 2254 petition is now ripe for review.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Malone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.