Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06746/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06746-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6746

METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, f/k/a Antonio Edward 

McLean,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00052-REP-RCY)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El, Appellant Pro Se. Alice 

Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6746 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El seeks to appeal the 

district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Supreme-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 15-6746 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6746 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3