Case ID: f-appx_126/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marvin LOVEJOY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 04-7615.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 30, 2005.
    Decided April 20, 2005.
    Marvin Lovejoy, Appellant pro se.
    Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, 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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Marvin Lovejoy, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 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 Lovejoy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Love-joy’s motions to amend judgment and to set aside his sentence and conviction. 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