
    Tony Randall DeBernard 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(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, 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 DeBernard 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.
    Michael Duchelle GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Les OSBORNE, Judge; Danny Fox, Sheriff, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 05-6113.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 27, 2005.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2005.
    Michael Duchelle Green, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Duchelle Green appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Osborne, No. CA-04-735-3 (E.D.Va. Jan. 5, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED  