Case ID: f-appx_73/html/0659-01.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

Walter Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
    Decided Sept. 8, 2003.
    Walter Lee Wright, Appellant pro se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Walter L. Wright 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, 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 Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Wright’s motion for a court ordered medical examination. 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.