Case Name: Mark A. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas McBRIDE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-03
Citations: 133 F. App'x 73
Docket Number: No. 04-7996
Parties: Mark A. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas McBRIDE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
Mark A. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas McBRIDE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7996.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2005.
Decided: June 3, 2005.
Mark A. Johnson, Appellant pro se.
Dawn Ellen Warfield, Jon Rufus Blevins, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court'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 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(e)(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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Johnson's motion to amend his brief. 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