
    Ray THOMAS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lloyd L. WATERS, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 03-7322.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 20, 2004.
    
      Ray Thomas, Appellant pro se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Ray Thomas 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 § 2254 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).

By failing to assert on appeal any of the claims that were raised and rejected by the district court, Thomas has faded to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and has waived his right to challenge the district court’s denial of § 2254 relief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Moreover, we decline to address the issues Thomas raises for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances).

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  