Case ID: f-appx_67/html/0217-01.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

Melvin C. WYNN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6602.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2003.
    Decided June 20, 2003.
    Melvin C. Wynn, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Melvin C. Wynn, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from a 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wynn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Wynn’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, but 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.