Case Name: Kraig SAVAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 107 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 04-6771
Parties: Kraig SAVAGE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 343–344

Head Matter:
Kraig SAVAGE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6771.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 12, 2004.
Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
Kraig Savage, Appellant pro se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kraig Savage seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed 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). 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 Savage has not made the requisite showing. 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