Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07402/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07402-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael John Brown
Appellant
City of Virginia Beach
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7402 

MICHAEL JOHN BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00245-RBS)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael John Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7402 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael John Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without

prejudice because he failed to comply with the court’s order to pay

the required filing fee. 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 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.

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 Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for 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: 07-7402 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 2 of 2