Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06375/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06375-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commonwealth of Virginia
Respondent
William S. V. Patterson
Appellant
Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6375

WILLIAM S. V. PATTERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:07-cv-00361-MHL)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William S. V. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden,

II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6375 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

 2 

PER CURIAM:

William S. V. Patterson seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.*

 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Patterson 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

Appeal: 08-6375 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 2