Case Name: Joseph V. PURANDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director V.D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-20
Citations: 96 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 04-6371
Parties: Joseph V. PURANDA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director V.D.O.C., Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
Joseph V. PURANDA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director V.D.O.C., Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6371.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2004.
Decided May 20, 2004.
Joseph V. Puranda, Appellant pro se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Joseph V. Puranda seeks to appeal the magistrate judge'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 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 Puranda 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
The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).