Case ID: f-appx_213/html/0208-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rashaad M. FLOYD, a/k/a Christopher Woods, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-7342.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 18, 2007.
    Decided: Jan. 22, 2007.
    Rashaad M. Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Rashaad Maleke Floyd, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The 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 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir.2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Floyd 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. 
      
      . This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.
     
      
      . To the extent Floyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his § 2254 petition, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.