Court Opinion

ID: 1014108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:11:32.115988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:34.335476
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 04-6870

WILLIS ANDREA JONES,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-03-384-1)

Submitted:   August 12, 2004                 Decided:   August 19, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willis Andrea Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Teresa Harris Pell, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Willis Andrea Jones, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and 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(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    Jones   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 -