UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6105
WILLIAM GREGORY COOK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS V. MILLER, III, Commissioner; MARYLAND
PAROLE COMMISSION, Individual Capacity,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
02-3972-PJM)
Submitted: April 3, 2003 Decided: April 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Gregory Cook, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Gregory Cook, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), which the district court construed as a
habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). On
appeal, Cook contends that the district court erred in construing
his complaint as a habeas petition and dismissing it for failure to
exhaust state remedies. We conclude that Cook’s claim was not
cognizable under § 1983, and the district court properly construed
it as sounding in habeas. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487
(1994).
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). When,
as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on
procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue
unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Cook has not made the
2
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123
S. Ct. 1029 (2003). 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
3