UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6057
ROBERT WRIGHT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
S. K. YOUNG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-537-7)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: July 29, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, PLC, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motions to alter or amend the judgment and
for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
& 60(b), both pertaining to the denial of habeas corpus petitions
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); see Reid v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 WL
1119646, at *5 (4th Cir. May 19, 2004). 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 Wright 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 -