Court Opinion

ID: 1014890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:24:14.371412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:30.872630
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7227

ROBERT L. GROOMS, JR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-1424-AM)

Submitted:   November 18, 2004         Decided:     November 30, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Grooms, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Robert L. Grooms, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) without prejudice for failure to comply with a district

court order.    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 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude     that   Grooms   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

                                   - 2 -